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
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Are there really aliens out there? Then where are the aliens?
The simple answer is 'Yes'. Statistically, it is inconceivable that there is no other life in the universe is just too improbable. In our galaxy there are between 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy. There are over 200 billion galaxies in the universe.
The two big real questions are, how frequently does life occur, and how frequently does intelligent life appear?
To calculate the frequency of intelligent life we should be able to detect, we have the drake equation. To calculate how many aliens we should discover, a number of constants must be plugged into the drake equation and the challenge lies in determining the value of these constants. However the constants are calculated, the fact is there are clearly less intelligent aliens out there then we would expect. This surprising lack of evidence of intelligent alien life is referred to as the Fermi paradox.
There is solid evidence that the building blocks for life exist in space. There is ambiguous evidence that remains of actual life have been found on meteorites, but this is not conclusive. But when it comes to intelligent civilisations, we should be able to at least detect their radio signals from thousands of light years away yet a very intensive search, SETI, has found nothing.
So we are left with one of two conclusions. Either life itself is remarkably rare, or the evolution of life sufficiently intelligent to transmit radio signals in the manner we do from Earth is extremely rare.
Why do we have a rare intelligent civilisation here on Earth?
The question arises, that if intelligent civilisations are so rare, how did we manage to get one on Earth.
Here are some of the theories:
1) The 'rare earth' theory. This theory proposes that Earth enjoys a set of conditions necessary for life that are extremely rare in the universe.
2) The 'low probability of intelligence' theory, which proposes that even on Earth the probability of intelligent civilisation are very low.
3) The 'self destruction theory' which proposes that intelligent civilisations may normally self destruct so quickly that they are a fleeting existence.
Any others?
I will discuss these alternatives soon.
The two big real questions are, how frequently does life occur, and how frequently does intelligent life appear?
To calculate the frequency of intelligent life we should be able to detect, we have the drake equation. To calculate how many aliens we should discover, a number of constants must be plugged into the drake equation and the challenge lies in determining the value of these constants. However the constants are calculated, the fact is there are clearly less intelligent aliens out there then we would expect. This surprising lack of evidence of intelligent alien life is referred to as the Fermi paradox.
There is solid evidence that the building blocks for life exist in space. There is ambiguous evidence that remains of actual life have been found on meteorites, but this is not conclusive. But when it comes to intelligent civilisations, we should be able to at least detect their radio signals from thousands of light years away yet a very intensive search, SETI, has found nothing.
So we are left with one of two conclusions. Either life itself is remarkably rare, or the evolution of life sufficiently intelligent to transmit radio signals in the manner we do from Earth is extremely rare.
Why do we have a rare intelligent civilisation here on Earth?
The question arises, that if intelligent civilisations are so rare, how did we manage to get one on Earth.
Here are some of the theories:
1) The 'rare earth' theory. This theory proposes that Earth enjoys a set of conditions necessary for life that are extremely rare in the universe.
2) The 'low probability of intelligence' theory, which proposes that even on Earth the probability of intelligent civilisation are very low.
3) The 'self destruction theory' which proposes that intelligent civilisations may normally self destruct so quickly that they are a fleeting existence.
Any others?
I will discuss these alternatives soon.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Population growth as a strategy?
There are arguments for a large population, arguments for a small population, and arguments for an increasing population.
Today, I want to examine the arguments for an increasing population. These arguments are not about how large the population is, but that it should increase.
The three arguments I have heard in favour of an increasing population are:
1) Population growth is necessary to secure essential economic growth
2) Population growth is necessary to maintain a sufficiently high ratio of younger people to elderly people
3) Population growth in a specific country is required to ease overcrowding in some other country or countries.
All of these sound reasonable, but lets first look at the argument against continued population growth. These are:
1) There is a limit to growth, sooner or later it must stop
2) Too many people inevitably must damage the earth to the detriment of all life on Earth
Is there a Limit to Growth?
Yes, demonstrably. One simply proof is to consider that people are made of atoms, and the number of atoms on earth is finite. Eventually you get to a point that there are not enough atoms to build each person. So growth must stop eventually, but is this 'eventually' so far away that it is completely hypothetical, or can we manage to colonise space before we reach maximum population on earth?
We have established that there clearly is a limit to the number of people we can have here on Earth, now the question becomes, 'What is the Limit?'.
Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. For every additional person, there is a decrease in resources per capita. This would not matter if every resource had an unlimited untapped supply, but clearly some resources are very finite. Consider beaches. Would it be ok if the average beach had twice as many people? Four times as many people? Eight times as many people? Does it matter if it is not realistic to expect our children to be ever able to visit a beach? Each doubling of the population currently occurs every forty years, how many doubling can we handle?
This is very subjective, but answer I get from many people is we could handle another doubling...maybe. Which, if correct, means we could maintain another forty years of a population growth strategy before we would need to stop.
When do too many people start to harm the Earth?
It is quite clear people are already damaging the planet, and for other species the earth is experiencing mass extinctions as a result. How much of this is due to bad practices as opposed to too many people is arguable, but a clear consequence of the need to produce food for people is habitat loss for other animals. Currently there are an estimated 7 billion people living on a planet that, without farming, is estimated could sustain an estimated population of 15million people.
(Luc-Normand Tellier (2009). "Urban world history: an economic and geographical perspective". PUQ. p.26. ISBN 2760515885)
There are currently debates about just how many people we are able to feed with currently available technology, with estimates ranging from clearly not everyone, through to there is a little to spare if we work at it. However it is clear we need to grow even more food, which would require even more farming land. This makes it difficult for significant parts of the globe to exist free of being transformed by human activity, which in turn means more species face extinction.
We are already down to 'it is us or them' will respect to allowing many of the other species we currently share our planet with to continue to exist outside zoos.
The Benefits: 1. Economic Growth.
There is a simple formulae: Maintain GDP per capita while increasing population and you have economic growth. However, there is another simple formulae: Share a fixed resource amongst a growing population and each share gets smaller. This means that as resources reach a limit the individuals must make sacrifices. A clear message is that economic growth through population growth is only realised by those who address the entire population, i.e. large companies and governments.
This is the underlying message. Big business and government wins with population growth, individuals pay the price. A far better path to economic growth is to increase GDP per capita since this works for everybody. Big business and government will still argue for the higher growth of complimenting any growth in GDP per capita with population growth, but individuals should not be misled as to the motives.
Benefit 2: Provide for the Ageing Population.Yes, this does work as long as the population continues to increase over the longer term, as it has since 1900. The truth is that we have only had today's long life expectancy in a world with a rapidly growing population. Throughout most of history, where population growth was far lower, life expectancy was shorter. However, is it even realistic that the population will grow over the longer term? Almost all estimates are that growth will decline over the next forty years, which corresponds to the population growing beyond what most see as sustainable or desirable anyway.
(See: Wikipedia overpopulation)
At best this will solve the problem for one generation, and our children will need a new solution? Is it a good idea to push the problem back ensuring it is even more difficult for our children, or should we start searching for a better, long term solution to this problem now?
At the current point, it is clear that the price of the population growth is already to increase food prices, which will only make life difficult for the ageing population anyway.
Benefit 3: Sharing the burden through Immigration.
There is a strong argument that some countries need to allow their population to grow to relieve the burden faced by people in overpopulated countries. This argument is valid, but it concedes that the problems of overpopulation are real and immediate. The country which is the source of the immigration provides a clear demonstration of just how real the problem is, the countries which realistically act as a destination for such immigration without very soon reaching their own crisis point are very limited.
Conclusion.
Some people already are living in overpopulated areas, and globally if the Earth is not already overpopulated, it is very close to that point. Any policy of ever increasing population now has a very limited life which can achieve short terms goals, but with a risk for the longer term. This means that short term economic growth can delay solving some problems, but only at the risk that the actual solution will be more difficult and result in even greater suffering. Delaying addressing the challenges that come from abandoning population growth as a problem for our children and not our generation is a shameful legacy that increases the problems our children will suffer in their lives. The challenge is to minimise the degree to which we pass on the problem over population to future generations.
Today, I want to examine the arguments for an increasing population. These arguments are not about how large the population is, but that it should increase.
The three arguments I have heard in favour of an increasing population are:
1) Population growth is necessary to secure essential economic growth
2) Population growth is necessary to maintain a sufficiently high ratio of younger people to elderly people
3) Population growth in a specific country is required to ease overcrowding in some other country or countries.
All of these sound reasonable, but lets first look at the argument against continued population growth. These are:
1) There is a limit to growth, sooner or later it must stop
2) Too many people inevitably must damage the earth to the detriment of all life on Earth
Is there a Limit to Growth?
Yes, demonstrably. One simply proof is to consider that people are made of atoms, and the number of atoms on earth is finite. Eventually you get to a point that there are not enough atoms to build each person. So growth must stop eventually, but is this 'eventually' so far away that it is completely hypothetical, or can we manage to colonise space before we reach maximum population on earth?
We have established that there clearly is a limit to the number of people we can have here on Earth, now the question becomes, 'What is the Limit?'.
Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. For every additional person, there is a decrease in resources per capita. This would not matter if every resource had an unlimited untapped supply, but clearly some resources are very finite. Consider beaches. Would it be ok if the average beach had twice as many people? Four times as many people? Eight times as many people? Does it matter if it is not realistic to expect our children to be ever able to visit a beach? Each doubling of the population currently occurs every forty years, how many doubling can we handle?
This is very subjective, but answer I get from many people is we could handle another doubling...maybe. Which, if correct, means we could maintain another forty years of a population growth strategy before we would need to stop.
When do too many people start to harm the Earth?
It is quite clear people are already damaging the planet, and for other species the earth is experiencing mass extinctions as a result. How much of this is due to bad practices as opposed to too many people is arguable, but a clear consequence of the need to produce food for people is habitat loss for other animals. Currently there are an estimated 7 billion people living on a planet that, without farming, is estimated could sustain an estimated population of 15million people.
(Luc-Normand Tellier (2009). "Urban world history: an economic and geographical perspective". PUQ. p.26. ISBN 2760515885)
There are currently debates about just how many people we are able to feed with currently available technology, with estimates ranging from clearly not everyone, through to there is a little to spare if we work at it. However it is clear we need to grow even more food, which would require even more farming land. This makes it difficult for significant parts of the globe to exist free of being transformed by human activity, which in turn means more species face extinction.
We are already down to 'it is us or them' will respect to allowing many of the other species we currently share our planet with to continue to exist outside zoos.
The Benefits: 1. Economic Growth.
There is a simple formulae: Maintain GDP per capita while increasing population and you have economic growth. However, there is another simple formulae: Share a fixed resource amongst a growing population and each share gets smaller. This means that as resources reach a limit the individuals must make sacrifices. A clear message is that economic growth through population growth is only realised by those who address the entire population, i.e. large companies and governments.
This is the underlying message. Big business and government wins with population growth, individuals pay the price. A far better path to economic growth is to increase GDP per capita since this works for everybody. Big business and government will still argue for the higher growth of complimenting any growth in GDP per capita with population growth, but individuals should not be misled as to the motives.
Benefit 2: Provide for the Ageing Population.Yes, this does work as long as the population continues to increase over the longer term, as it has since 1900. The truth is that we have only had today's long life expectancy in a world with a rapidly growing population. Throughout most of history, where population growth was far lower, life expectancy was shorter. However, is it even realistic that the population will grow over the longer term? Almost all estimates are that growth will decline over the next forty years, which corresponds to the population growing beyond what most see as sustainable or desirable anyway.
(See: Wikipedia overpopulation)
At best this will solve the problem for one generation, and our children will need a new solution? Is it a good idea to push the problem back ensuring it is even more difficult for our children, or should we start searching for a better, long term solution to this problem now?
At the current point, it is clear that the price of the population growth is already to increase food prices, which will only make life difficult for the ageing population anyway.
Benefit 3: Sharing the burden through Immigration.
There is a strong argument that some countries need to allow their population to grow to relieve the burden faced by people in overpopulated countries. This argument is valid, but it concedes that the problems of overpopulation are real and immediate. The country which is the source of the immigration provides a clear demonstration of just how real the problem is, the countries which realistically act as a destination for such immigration without very soon reaching their own crisis point are very limited.
Conclusion.
Some people already are living in overpopulated areas, and globally if the Earth is not already overpopulated, it is very close to that point. Any policy of ever increasing population now has a very limited life which can achieve short terms goals, but with a risk for the longer term. This means that short term economic growth can delay solving some problems, but only at the risk that the actual solution will be more difficult and result in even greater suffering. Delaying addressing the challenges that come from abandoning population growth as a problem for our children and not our generation is a shameful legacy that increases the problems our children will suffer in their lives. The challenge is to minimise the degree to which we pass on the problem over population to future generations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)