links on the population debate

the L.A Times articles on population ( No comment required)
An article on where population is headed and another.

The uTube videos
   Overpopulation is a Myth   - a video arguing the 'no problem' case (and my summary and response to that video)
   Overpopulation is not a Myth - a video arguing the 'yes a problem' case (and my summary and response to that video)

  The science of overpopulation  (no comment required)
  Overpopulation is not a myth (another response)
 

A high profile group focused on addressing the issue of global population. This group is London based and has high profile members including David David Attenborough.  Articles on sustainability and sustainable consumption are very informative and generally the complete 'issues and solutions' section presents a very clear picture of the issues.and



Organisations:
In Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom and United Kingdom 2

USA

Population: Do we face Under-population, just right population or Over-population?

I have heard the claim that climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Well I strongly suggest it is population, not climate change, that is the greatest moral challenge facing humanity.

Firstly, for background, here are the three positions that can be taken on human poluation.

1. Under-population – the world needs more people.

Well, in truth, this argument is presented more often as a 'we need population growth' argument than as a 'the world is under-populated' argument. The main argument is that population growth generates positive economic outcomes. Simplistically, the argument is that more people equals greater wealth and that a growing population generates a higher ratio of young people to help look after old people.

Strangely, everyone I have seen arguing this case seems to declare that even though they are arguing the case for growing the population, that the world population will stop growing and start declining anyway and there is no need to prevent this happening. So the argument ends up retreating into 'lets grow now, but soon we can stop growing and start declining'.

2. The Global Population is just right.

Well in truth, I have not heard this as the initial position of anyone. The actual argument seems to go 'we need population growth as pollution decline is an economic disaster, but do not worry as we will soon have population decline and return to current levels'. The argument is for a rise then fall back to current levels. Which may seem strange as the argument starts with the position that the population decline would be an economic disaster.

3. Over-population.

The global economy does not have anywhere near the capacity to supply the current 7 billion people at the rate of resource consumption per capita by people in Europe or America. More alarmingly, the argument is that we only manage to maintain current global capacity through the non-sustainable consumption of resources some of which are nearing exhaustion. In short, we are eroding the ability to even feed the current global population and are on track for disaster. Against this argument run previous 'doomsday' dates that have passed without the predicted apocalypse.

So which argument is correct? And more significantly, what action should we take about all of this? While I will examine all the arguments further, I will spoil the conclusion by saying that all groups seem to agree that global population decline at some point is inevitable. The reality is that population decline at a global level is an inevitable but huge challenge no matter what perspective you hold.

The Harm Hypothesis - Revenge

The Harm Hypothesis proposes three reasons that someone may harm you, and revenge is not one of them.  But isn't revenge a basic motivation for someone to harm another?

My suggestion is that revenge is not a primal motive for harm, and instead is a motive underlined by fear. The counter argument to this is the proposal that people seek revenge with fearing those who are the target of the revenge.  However is it not true that if whatever triggered the need for revenge is something warranting fear? Without having suffered harm in some way wouldn't we have no cause to seek revenge?  And suffering harm is something that we should fear.

Testing the Harm Hypohesis- The Animal Kingdom

This post attempts to apply the rules of the harm hypothesis.

The three rules look quite clear when applied to any species other than people. At fist I had only eat you, but then I considered the case of the malaria mosquito and realised that the growth and reproduction cycle of a creature may make use of another creature in more complex ways. Even when applied specifically to humans, a variety of creatures from parasites to plants simply benefiting from seeds being relocated make use humans in their life cycle. Whilst benefiting from another creature does not require harming that creature, it can provide sufficient motivation to cause harm where necessary.

The Harm Hypothesis – the origin of conflict.

Our planet is home to a significant amount of turmoil and our lives are plagued with the concerns of others harming us. Refrains from 'it is not safe to walk the streets at night' through to concerns of terrorism and national disputes that threaten, and sometimes even lead to, war play a negative role in our existence.

Essentially we are often faced with concerns that others may harm our existence. But why would another wish to harm our existence? Well here is my harm hypothesis:

Another living thing will only cause you (or any other living thing) harm for one of the following basic reasons:

1) The creature causing harm wants to eat you, or utilise you in order to reproduce.

2) The creature causing harm wants to take something from you.

3) The creature causing harm is afraid of you.

The purpose of breaking down the causes of harm to root causes is to try and develop a greater understanding of those may cause harm in order avoid the need to cause harm.

Now one possible criticism of the list is simply the suggestion that there are reasons that are not on the list so the list is incomplete and so does not correctly provide the understanding it is intended to provide.

As arguments for different root causes of harm are proposed I will attempt to address each one individually and examine whether every situation we can imagine can genuinely be attributed to one or more of these three principals. Additionally, and most importantly, I will examine if a possible understanding of a source of harm in terms of these basic principle appears instructive and can assist in preventing harm occurring.

Testing Harm the hypothesis.

The animal kingdom.

 Revenge