overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

mheslep

What do you mean superficially? Its a fact the population growth is low or none existent for much of the developed world. If it were not for immigration the population would be shrinking even in the US. Why this is true can be debated, not that it is.

I've always read that in the third world people have large families a) provide for the family and the tribe, and b) because women have little or no rights. Develop those countries, raise people out of poverty, and we observe these problems tend to go away.

Evo

The fact is that population growth is increasing at ~ 90 million a year. That's net over deaths. That is a problem.

Yes, developed countries have been educated and are more responsible, we need to get the same education and acccess to birth control to developing nations. However the Catholic church went on a rampage towards the UN's attempt at this. http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabba...population.asp

russ_watters

You had a couple of extra words in that sentence, Evo.....fixed.

Max Faust

Well, I'd tend to think that if you are poor, your (selfish) chances of reaching a comfortable old age will increase the more people you manufacture who are likely to stay loyal to you in a direct and no-nonsense, lofty way. If you can trust your government (in its many permutations) to take care of business, you'll be likely to forego all the rigmarole of raising a bunch of screaming, crazy kids - i.e. "pay the price now for reaping the rewards later". In other words, I think that the more organised and functioning the society-at-large, the fewer kids you will want to manufacture.

brainstorm

What about people who don't have kids to get slaves but who believe in the biblical value of "going forth and multiplying?" Presumably such people see life as a gift, which they want to multiply and give to others.

People who fear population growth and people who see multiplication as acceptance of divine providence seem to be diametrically opposed to me. A passage from the koran actually comes to mind which forbids the killing of wives and children as a response to poverty/scarcity. Basically it says not to kill starving/suffering people because God will provide for them.

The Catholic church also continues to discourage birth control, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, etc. doesn't it? Theologically it does make sense that these are all life-negative activities. The pope actually prayed for those caught up in a "cult of death." I wonder if population-control ideology is part of what he was praying for salvation for.

Max Faust

I don't believe in the existence of such people.
I do however believe in the existence of psychotic delusions.

CRGreathouse

So let
A = people who don't have kids to get slaves
A' = A intersect C
B = people who believe in "going forth and multiplying"
B' = B intersect C
C = people who have children
D = A intersect B
D' = D intersect C

You're saying that D, or at least D', is empty. This strikes me as unlikely. Do you think that A (resp., A') or B (resp., B') is empty, or just that they happen to have a null intersection?

Max Faust

OK, I'm gonna cry now. Mathematics makes me feel dyslexic.

brainstorm

It's funny you would mention psychoses. I actually have considered studying macro-social imagery such as that constructed by population/demography as causing psychoses. I believe a point can be reached in macro-analysis where conclusions derived at the macro level become experiencable as observables in everyday life. Some people would probably argue that if the science is valid, the experience of its conclusions are not psychoses, but I think the issue is in regards to the link between analysis and observation/experience. When analysis results in observations or experiences, this is the reverse of inductive theorizing and a bizarre perversion of deduction.

Come to think of it, I believe it's called "tautology." This was Karl Popper's main critique of Marxist social science, I think. He said that once you learn to visualize class-conflict, every current event would appear as a conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

I wonder if population demography has the same effect by making all current events seem like the result of overcrowding and overpopulation? Could this be a form of psychosis?

brainstorm

Amazing encoding but I'm afraid I'm too lazy to decode it. If you type this out in uncoded language, I will read it.

Max Faust

All I have is field work which is based in the "dirty" process of handling reality. I have close-up mouth stenches and dislocated eyes of people wildly out of control, gunshot wounds, and the smell of blood. Not very scientific, in the mathematical and orderly sense, but it leaves an impression.

curiousphoton

Draw 3 interesting circles and fill them in accordingly. It might take you 2 minutes if you're struggling to draw a circle. You will see the light!

Q_Goest

I'm not suggesting your observation is correct or incorrect, but I wonder where the research is to back it up. It seems like it might be so obvious that we don't need to back up statements like this but I bet there's plenty of research out there that examines exactly what you're suggesting. I'd bet there are social scientists looking to quantify how population growth depends on the level of development, including how to define 'development' and what factors are involved and why. I suspect there is a wealth of knowledge that can put this correlation into perspective. I'd be curious to see if anyone can quote some of that research.

Evo

This is huge, but it's "Everything you wanted to know about research on overpopulation and it's effects".

http://atlas.aaas.org/index.php?part=2

mheslep

Interesting. Everyone knows that US energy consumption per capita is high, but I also see the US produces far more primary energy (1447 mmtoe) than any other area of the world, including _all_ of the Middle East combined. (1265 mmtoe).
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/energy_...odcon&res=high

Evo

Whatever, that's off topic. We're discussing overpopulation taking over and destroying land and water.

CRGreathouse

Max, brainstorm: I had no intention of confusing, but just the opposite: trying to learn precisely what was intended by the earlier post.

There are two things Max mentioned: people who don't have kids to get slaves, and people who believe in "going forth and multiplying. There are four natural groups for people to fall into:
1. people who don't have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
2. people who do have kids to get slaves who believe in "going forth and multiplying.
3. people who don't have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.
4. people who do have kids to get slaves who don't believe in "going forth and multiplying.

Of these, which do you feel contain at least one person?