News Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[Evo]

The diversity of positions surprises me. It is clear we will reach no consensus. Time will tell.

I don't think we need more time to know that we can't support more humans. We clearly can't support the numbers we have.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think we need more time to know that we can't support more humans. We clearly can't support the numbers we have.

so what is the op's question? what population can the planet maintain? or what population can the planet maintain at a certain measure of quality of life? if so, what yardstick to use for quality of life?

 

[Evo]

so what is the op's question? what population can the planet maintain? or what population can the planet maintain at a certain measure of quality of life? if so, what yardstick to use for quality of life?

Since they don't set any parameters, I am assuming they mean realistically, considering lifestyles today would be maintained.

If they meant what the bare minimum to sustain human life would be, without thought to employment, health, well being, environment, or other realistic scenarios, then this thread would be meaningless.

 

[Ken Natton]

Once again, I sleep one night and it is astonishing to find how far behind I am on this thread. But reading through it, I confess I am surprised to find that the main line of argument appears to be that the extent of the problem is overstated. I can only say that Evo has made a very tenacious and excellent job of standing up the real issues in the face of what seems to me like unwarranted complacency. It is worth making the point that the current population explosion is traced to about 1750. Understand, I am pointing out just how recent that is. In less than 300 years the world population has gone from fewer than one billion to over seven billion. To me, it is like watching a balloon slowly expanding as it fills with air. You are not sure exactly when it is going to go bang but there is nothing more certain than that it is going to go bang sooner or later. And in case anyone feels that a population collapse might only affect other parts of the world, it should be clear that some cataclysmic event – I shall not speculate on what form it might take – that led to a massive reduction in the world population would lead to political destabilisation that could take decades to settle down. The cold, hard reality is that the lifestyle that we enjoy and take for granted today is far more fragile than some appear to realize. My point is not actually to be a prophet of doom, but it is clear to me that real and tangible action is required, today, but that such a thing is highly unlikely while the underlying attitude remains so complacent.

 

[drankin]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

 

[Ken Natton]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

Okay, I don’t pretend that the solution is easy, and unfortunately it might sound like airy-fairy moralising, but it seems to me that the heart and soul of the real solution is the education and empowerment of women. All the evidence indicates that when a woman has a real choice, has real options, very few choose to spend their adulthood in an endless cycle of pregnancy and childbirth. The practical implementation of such an idea would require a fundamental shift in the balance of the world economy. Hopeless to think that such a thing could happen? The prospective consequences mean that sooner or later it has to.

 

[drankin]

Education only goes so far. For example, how many of us are overweight but know exactly how not to be? How many people know smoking will most likely be the thing that kills them but smoke anyway?

Cultures would need to change. Many cultures live to have large healthy families. Regardless of their wealth. Give them condoms and they will make balloons for their kids with them.

 

[WhoWee]

Why do we assume that in the future we will be restricted to living and farming on land only?

 

[Evo]

My personal opinion is that something needs to be done now, that the means to stop the population explosion (enforcement of limiting the number of children born per person) is not popular with politicians or religions, so it's not going to happen.

IMO, we're doomed until we become engaged in another world war or there is a massive epidemic we can't control, or we breed ourselves out of existence by destroying the planet with our numbers. I don't see a bright future for our great grand children.

 

[Evo]

Why do we assume that in the future we will be restricted to living and farming on land only?

If you are talking about living over water, where would this be that would not be quickly wiped out by storms or large waves?

 

[davidj89]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

Honestly I think it may be colonizing other planets. I'm under the impression that in a fairly short amount of time (40-50 yrs) people will be able to choose to live for a much longer amount of time and people will still want to be popping out baby's. This means that we will either force people to die or shoot them into space haha

 

[edpell]

The prospective consequences mean that sooner or later it has to.

It has not been the case for homo sapiens for the last 2 million years so I do not see that "it has to". I know of no top predator in the world that self limits its population.

 

[Evo]

It has not been the case for homo sapiens for the last 2 million years so I do not see that "it has to". I know of no top predator in the world that self limits its population.

We've been lucky that the last ice age, the Black Plague, genocide and constant wars, lack of medicine, etc... managed to keep the human population down and in some cases nearly wiped out. We don't have that any more. Many species will control population naturally. A duck, for example, will lay more or less eggs depending on the amount of food available. Many animals are part of the food chain, so that limits their population. Humans on the other hand have invented ways to protect themselves from predators, to vaccinate themselves against disease, change our environment to the detriment of wildlife and the ecosystem, and successfully save and prolong lives through medical means. Even worse, (I never claimed to have popular opinions) we now artificially create life where it naturally would not have happened.

 

[WhoWee]

If you are talking about living over water, where would this be that would not be quickly wiped out by storms or large waves?

I'm not certain how many years into the future we're projecting? However, in 100 to 200 years, it might be possible to live below the surface - or perhaps even design surface oriented structures to submerge (full or partial) during periods of extreme weather?

 

[Evo]

I'm not certain how many years into the future we're projecting? However, in 100 to 200 years, it might be possible to live below the surface - or perhaps even design surface oriented structures to submerge (full or partial) during periods of extreme weather?

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

Real estate has a limited supply. As prices increase and choice locations diminish and given the attraction to the water - it seems reasonable people will want to live on the water. I'm thinking luxury living - not public housing.

 

[drankin]

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

I think we are a long way off from this. We are talking about denying a free people from being able to reproduce as they see fit. China does this but they are not a free society. Convincing a free people to adopt such a social control that limits their reproductive liberty just doesn't seem possible. At least not in the US.

Here, at least, I would be in favor of some sort of restriction dependent on a persons ability to provide for their children and not be relient on government assistance. But, how would it be enforceable?

 

[Evo]

Real estate has a limited supply. As prices increase and choice locations diminish and given the attraction to the water - it seems reasonable people will want to live on the water. I'm thinking luxury living - not public housing.

Like that World boat. It advertises capacity for 200 residents. Two hundred very rich people. With all of the imported luxury foods, I wonder how sustainable that is. Oh look at the maid looking out the window. I guess perhaps the extrremely wealthy will take to these kind of boats, although they might be afraid to debark for ritzy outings amongst the overpopulated starving masses at the ports.

http://www.aboardtheworld.com/reside

 

[Evo]

I think we are a long way off from this. We are talking about denying a free people from being able to reproduce as they see fit. China does this but they are not a free society. Convincing a free people to adopt such a social control that limits their reproductive liberty just doesn't seem possible. At least not in the US.

Here, at least, I would be in favor of some sort of restriction dependent on a persons ability to provide for their children and not be relient on government assistance. But, how would it be enforceable?

On income tax, only the first two children can be claimed as dependents and a tax penalty for each additional child. That way people can still pop them out, but there won't be a financial incentive for it.

Or no tax break for any dependents.

This would act as both a deterrant and would also increase tax revenue.

 

[drankin]

On income tax, only the first two children can be claimed as dependents and a tax penalty for each additional child. That way people can still pop them out, but there won't be a financial incentive for it.

That's a start. Or how about doing away with such a credit altogether?

 

[Pattonias]

Even though it is a long way off, space will become a more and more viable solution as time progresses. Honestly we don't really have to worry about conservation once we are no longer confined to the planet as we will have raw materials available to us from the solar system. The real problem is conserving the planet until we reach that point. We don't want to enter space because we turned the planet into a dead wasteland. We want to do it because we knew that it was the logical next step.

Unfortunately, I think humanity will enter space once we turn this planet into a wasteland.

It's hard to justify to a politician why he should spend money on space exploration when some of his constituents are starving or homeless. Its remarkable that NASA has a budget at all given the current economic situation.

 

[mheslep]

While we're infringing on freedoms I'd go for a tax penalty on anyone who say's "we're doomed." Then, I'd fund some philanthropic programs out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager" about the future.

 

[Pattonias]

I'm not doomed, a few thousand more years and humanity may be. Unless of course we are killed by Mayan zombies in a year or so.

 

[Evo]

While we're infringing on freedoms I'd go for a tax penalty on anyone who say's "we're doomed." Then, I'd fund some philanthropic programs out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager" about the future.

And I'd impose an even higher tax on those that can't see how population is increasing at an alarming rate, which has created an unprecedented, huge, world population that has resulted in widespread starvation, lack of water, unemployment and the homeless, to pay for the current overpopulation problems.

 

[Ken Natton]

Education only goes so far. For example, how many of us are overweight but know exactly how not to be? How many people know smoking will most likely be the thing that kills them but smoke anyway?

Yes, this is quite a simplistic view of my point. Firstly, I would point out that while there are always those who will ignore sensible advice, at a demographic level, smoking is much less prevalent today than it was thirty years ago, and many people have changed their dietary habits in response to public education programs, but that is not really the point I was making.

Feminism is still largely a Western phenomenon. Many societies around the world remain patriarchal and male dominated. Such societies are set up to keep women compliant. Does that mean that I am suggesting that most children are born of rape? Well no, that would be too extreme to suggest that. But the point about educating women is not simply to teach them about contraception or to teach them about the health problems associated with endless pregnancy, it is to give them an opportunity to make a different choice. I don’t agree with those who advocate forcible limits to numbers of children. Such a scheme is unlikely to achieve much beyond widespread unhappiness. My way, you won’t need to impose limits, a reduction in the birth rate will follow quite naturally.

 

[mheslep]

Some 2010 unemployment rate, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html" per sq mile figures:

Singapore: 2.1%, population density 18,176, third highest in the world
Hong Kong: 3.5%, population density 18,645, forth highest in the world
US: 9-10%, population density 84
Haiti: 41%, population density 781

Wild hypothesis: not population, but cultural, political and economic factors are overwhelmingly responsible for the misery of this world.

 

[pascal12]

Would it be fair to compare a place like Singapore or Hong Kong to the US and say that they have a comparable standard of living even though their population density is so much higher? I thought they import most of their food, while much of midwest US is dedicated to crops.

 

[Evo]

Some 2010 unemployment rate, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html" per sq mile figures:

Singapore: 2.1%, population density 18,176, third highest in the world
Hong Kong: 3.5%, population density 18,645, forth highest in the world
US: 9-10%, population density 84
Haiti: 41%, population density 781

Wild hypothesis: not population, but cultural, political and economic systems are overwhelmingly responsible for the misery of this world.

It depends on how unemployment is counted in each country. Here in the US women and even teenagers can be included among the *unemployed* in coutries where women traditionally stay at home and are not counted as part of the workforce, it skews the numbers. If a family owns a small garden that they live off of, and they aren't part of the workforce, they are not counted among the unemployed.

Internationally, some nations' unemployment rates are sometimes muted or appear less severe due to the number of self-employed individuals working in agriculture. When comparing unemployment rates between countries or time periods, it is best to consider differences in their levels of industrialization and self-employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Limitations_of_the_unemployment_definition

 

[Proton Soup]

And I'd impose an even higher tax on those that can't see how population is increasing at an alarming rate, which has created an unprecedented, huge, world population that has resulted in widespread starvation, lack of water, unemployment and the homeless, to pay for the current overpopulation problems.

assuming we could freeze the population where it is now, i see no reason we couldn't meet everyone's needs. but we all know that the nature of man is such that it will not happen. we're just too competitive for that.

 

[mheslep]

If it were not for Africa, the world's population as forecast by the UN would be falling at ~5 million per year by 2100 instead of leveling off with Africa. So it would seem that concentrating on problems intrinsic to Africa would be an appropriate response to global population. Western fertility treatments, for example, are utterly irrelevant.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate"

 

[mheslep]

Would it be fair to compare a place like Singapore or Hong Kong to the US and say that they have a comparable standard of living even though their population density is so much higher?

Please explain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita"

I thought they import most of their food, while much of midwest US is dedicated to crops.

In the global economy everyone imports a large share of their *something* from somewhere else.

 

[Proton Soup]

If it were not for Africa, the world's population as forecast by the UN would be falling at ~5 million per year by 2100 instead of leveling off with Africa. So it would seem that concentrating on problems intrinsic to Africa would be an appropriate response to global population. Western fertility treatments, for example, are utterly irrelevant.

yeah, but africa actually does have plenty of room for expansion. now, we may want to limit their population growth so that they don't use up all of our resources.

 

[mheslep]

yeah, but africa actually does have plenty of room for expansion. ...

My point from some of the above is that room is not the issue, at least not a primary one. Culutral, political, and economic systems are the issue from what I can observe. Given the woeful state of those factors in much of Africa I'd say the continent has nothing close to enough room or resources to prevent disasters, the same goes for (say) Haiti. I see the one million killed in the Rwandan massacre and the unnecessary misery in Haiti caused by the earthquake despite large foreign (attempts at) donations as evidence of this.

 

[ThomasT]

I have to agree with Evo that the solution to the problem involves decreasing and minimizing fertility rates to replacement and subreplacement levels. We're not going to be living on or under the water in any great numbers, and we're not going to colonize any planets. Sufficient clean, fresh water, and food, and shelter will continue to be increasingly huge problems for the world's poor.

Most of the growth will be in impoverished and underdeveloped countries. At present there are over a billion people who are malnourished and lack access to safe drinking water. This number will probably increase greatly before it decreases ... if it ever decreases. But this doesn't have to affect the developed countries to any great extent unless they admit large numbers of impoverished immigrants. Wrt this, problems for the US are its immigration policies and its 'porous' borders. With current immigration levels it's estimated that the US population will grow to about 400 million by 2050, and without immigration to only about 330 million during the same period.

 

[WhoWee]

I have to agree with Evo that the solution to the problem involves decreasing and minimizing fertility rates to replacement and subreplacement levels. We're not going to be living on or under the water in any great numbers, and we're not going to colonize any planets. Sufficient clean, fresh water, and food, and shelter will continue to be increasingly huge problems for the world's poor.

Most of the growth will be in impoverished and underdeveloped countries. At present there are over a billion people who are malnourished and lack access to safe drinking water. This number will probably increase greatly before it decreases ... if it ever decreases. But this doesn't have to affect the developed countries to any great extent unless they admit large numbers of impoverished immigrants. Wrt this, problems for the US are its immigration policies and its 'porous' borders. With current immigration levels it's estimated that the US population will grow to about 400 million by 2050, and without immigration to only about 330 million during the same period.

my bold
How might this be achieved through incentive or force - or some other less obvious (to me at least) choice?

 

[mheslep]

I have to agree with Evo that the solution to the problem involves decreasing and minimizing fertility rates to replacement and subreplacement levels. ...

Recognize that the fertility rates for most of the world's largest countries (by population) have http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...8324800000&tend=1279512000000&hl=en&dl=en_US", including China. India is on tract to fall below replacement in the next ten years. This leaves Nigeria and Pakistan as the explosive growth centers, requiring attention. Some major countries like Japan and S. Korea have a combination of extreme low birth rates and low immigration meaning that, should the trend continue, within several generations time they won't exist in anything more than geographic terms.

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't read much of the thread, but...

I don't think we need more time to know that we can't support more humans. We clearly can't support the numbers we have.

[separate post]
Since they don't set any parameters, I am assuming they mean realistically, considering lifestyles today would be maintained.

If they meant what the bare minimum to sustain human life would be, without thought to employment, health, well being, environment, or other realistic scenarios, then this thread would be meaningless.

The question definitely tends to be vague, but I don't think your criteria helps, since "lifestyles today" covers a broad range that includes millions of people starving to death. In fact, it's practically a tautology that the world is currently sustaining the population it has today under today's conditions!

The criteria needs to also clarify whether it's talking about what can be/is being done (with existing technology?) and what can be/is being done with the current geopolitical situation. Ie, there is currently enough food to feed everyone on Earth to a reasonable level of subsentence, but it isn't being done because of politics. I think it is more useful to think about what is possible rather than what our politics currently allows. Clearly, politics (and its twin brother, culture) is the primary limitation.

The question is also very broad. Supporting people with what? All their survival needs? All their wants? I think the question should be separated into two criteria. The first shouldn't extend beyond survival needs. Food, shelter, clothing, plumbing, heat, basic medicine. The second should be a mid-level developed nation lifestyle.

So my opinion is this:

1. The world today is capable of supporting its population to a survival level, providing everyone with enough food, clothing, shelter, heat, and plumbing to sustain a full and reasonably healthy lifespan. We're not at a steady-state, so it can support a lot more people for a short time or a few more people for a medium time, but neither for a long time. The resource limitation later...

2. The world today is not capable of supporting its population to a western middle-class level of development. The limitation here is the same as the limitation above...

i think it will ultimately depend on the availability of cheap energy. once cheap energy becomes scarce, so will crop yields.

I'll be more specific: cheap, portable energy. And even more specific: oil. A survival level of support doesn't require much in the way of oil, but it does require some and probably more than we have. A middle-class level of support requires a lot of oil, at least the way we use it today. The world can't support very many more middle class/above people than it currently does unless we find an alternative to oil. For just about everything else, energywise, there are relatively simple alternatives that mean it is physically/technically possible to provide people with all the power needed for home/work use at today's middle-class level of development.

Food will ultimately provide a harder limitation than energy but as far as what the Earth is capable of sustaining, I doubt we're all that close to the limit. Double what we have today doesn't sound unrealistic imo. Clearly, there is a diminishing return to crop yields, but at the same time, a lot of people are still using farming techniques that have been obsolete for hundreds of years. So there's still a lot of growth potential.

To sum up, I think "overpopulation" is a myth that hides the real problem: politics/culture. The political/cultural problems that hold back development are vastly more serious than the existing and potential technical and resource problems. That's why I think politics is so important!

 

[russ_watters]

Recognize that the fertility rates for most of the world's largest countries have http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...8324800000&tend=1279512000000&hl=en&dl=en_US", including China. India is on tract to fall below replacement in the next ten years. This leaves Nigeria and Pakistan as the explosive growth centers, requiring attention. Some major countries like Japan and S. Korea have a combination of extreme low birth rates and low immigration meaning that, should the trend continue, within several generations time they won't exist in anything more than geographic terms.

The above dovetails with my post and implies that if the cultural drivers for low fertility rate are extended to the rest of the world, we'll reach an equilibrium population level that is indefinitely sustainable.

 

[256bits]

These are some of the items to consider when examining world population. It is definitely not exhaustive, but food supply and living space and not the only criteria as some would suggest. Inter-rationships are evident I would presume.

Birth Rate - infant mortality
Child death rate - More children reach maturity
Death rate - people just live longer
Life expectancy - people just live longer again
Disease - medicines, vaccines, hospital care
Food production - US is a (the) major exporter of food
War - minimal effect
Economic Society - nomadic, agrarian, hunter gatherer, industrial
Cultural society - emphasis on sharing, globalization, reproduction, for some examples
Catastraphies - eathquake, meteorite, drought, pestilance, plague
Energy Availablility and cost

Some interesting sites.
World population 6,950,255,012
22:38 UTC (EST+5) Jul 20, 2011
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

another statistical site : http://www.joshuaproject.net/world-clock.php

Also:
How many people have ever lived on earth?
It was written during the 1970s that 75% of the people who had ever been born were alive at that moment. This was grossly false.

Assuming that we start counting from about 50,000 B.C., the time when modern Homo sapiens appeared on the Earth (and not from 700,000 B.C. when the ancestors of Homo sapiens appeared, or several million years ago when hominids were present), taking into account that all population data are a rough estimate, and assuming a constant growth rate applied to each period up to modern times, it has been estimated that a total of approximately 106 billion people have been born since the dawn of the human race, making the population currently alive roughly 6% of all people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

Others have estimated the number of human beings who have ever lived to be anywhere from 45 billion to 125 billion, with most estimates falling into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.
http://www.worldometers.info/population/

I just love statistics.

 

[ThomasT]

How might this be achieved through incentive or force - or some other less obvious (to me at least) choice?

Yes, through incentives and disincentives. Wrt the populations where the highest growth rates are expected the people have to somehow be made to realize that this isn't the world of their predecessors where large families were more or less necessary. It's in the process of happening but will take some time. Incentives can be offered to women/families that have 2 children or less, and some sort of monetary penalties can be imposed on women/families that have more than 2 children. Such as zero children gets you x dollars per month, 1 child gets you, say .8x, 2 children gets you .6x, 3 children or more gets you nothing. (I don't know, but smart people in positions to institute/influence policies should definitely be pondering these sorts of questions. And they probably are, I'm guessing.) But I wouldn't advocate direct force of any sort. These people are having a very difficult time as it is.

 

[ThomasT]

Recognize that the fertility rates for most of the world's largest countries have http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...8324800000&tend=1279512000000&hl=en&dl=en_US", including China.

Yes, this is what I gather from the stats I've looked at.

India is on tract to fall below replacement in the next ten years.

Ok.

This leaves Nigeria and Pakistan as the explosive growth centers, requiring attention.

Yes, and most of Africa actually, according to stuff I've looked at. Also, there are a few countries in South America and the Caribbean that the US might be concerned about as possible sources of unwanted immigrants as their populations grow. It's also important to consider that the people in the regions of relatively high fertility rates are consuming far far fewer resources than the people in the regions with lower rates and around zero growth (excluding increases due to immigration).

Some major countries like Japan and S. Korea have a combination of extreme low birth rates and low immigration meaning that, should the trend continue, within several generations time they won't exist in anything more than geographic terms.

What do you mean by "they won't exist in anything more than geographic terms." Their populations aren't going to decrease to zero.

It seems that the eastern and western European and Scandinavian countries are also not part of the overpopulation problem.

 

[ThomasT]

... if the cultural drivers for low fertility rate are extended to the rest of the world, we'll reach an equilibrium population level that is indefinitely sustainable.

This seems like a reasonable assumption. The big problem is of course in getting those cultural drivers to take hold, transitioning from historical regional cultural perspectives to the necessary modern worldview.

 

[Evo]

Darn you Russ_Watters, you should check your bed tonight for a big fish!

After my shows are over, I do have information from as recent as 3-11 from experts saying the surplus has severely dwindled. Is a lot of the trouble in Africa to do with corrupt governments, yes. Is a lot of trouble in Africa that they won't use the tons of GM seed we've sent them that would produce greater yields in their soil/climates, yes. They fear that their exports to the EU, that is decidely against GM, will hurt their sales, so they gladly cut off their own nose to spite their face.

Anyway, it's psycho food night on tv, so I will only be looking in sporadically.

 

[ThomasT]

To sum up, I think "overpopulation" is a myth that hides the real problem: politics/culture. The political/cultural problems that hold back development are vastly more serious than the existing and potential technical and resource problems.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Evo]

The above dovetails with my post and implies that if the cultural drivers for low fertility rate are extended to the rest of the world, we'll reach an equilibrium population level that is indefinitely sustainable.

I don't think that an ideal population is one that takes a huge effort to sustain, which is what we are faced with right now.

Imo, we have too many people on this planet right now. A realistic population is one that sustains itself without extraordinary means, and that applies to all parts of the world.

 

[russ_watters]

Darn you Russ_Watters, you should check your bed tonight for a big fish!

Salmon please - I'm grillin tonight!

Is a lot of trouble in Africa that they won't use the tons of GM seed we've sent them that would produce greater yields in their soil/climates, yes.

I can't imagine a political problem more disastrously self-destructive. Makes me want to slap a warlord.

I don't think that an ideal population is one that takes a huge effort to sustain, which is what we are faced with right now.

What's "a huge effort"? Right now, we pay farmers not to farm to artificially pump up the prices of our crops, plus pay them extra for the crops they do farm because the supply is so high and demand so low that the prices are too low (for someone's taste...not sure who ). Sounds like a lot of effort designed to not support people, if you ask me!

 

[ThomasT]

I don't think that an ideal population is one that takes a huge effort to sustain, which is what we are faced with right now.

Imo, we have too many people on this planet right now. A realistic population is one that sustains itself without extraordinary means, and that applies to all parts of the world.

This makes sense. So, a good (necessary) goal would seem to be negative population growth worldwide. Is it a realistic goal? Not right now, because of long standing cultural and political practices to the contrary, but I can see it happening eventually.

 

[ThomasT]

What's "a huge effort"? Right now, we pay farmers not to farm to artificially pump up the prices of our crops, plus pay them extra for the crops they do farm because the supply is so high and demand so low that the prices are too low (for someone's taste...not sure who ). Sounds like a lot of effort designed to not support people, if you ask me!

Good point. Still, it wouldn't be a bad thing to aim for a world negative population growth. Would it?

 

[Evo]

Right now, we pay farmers not to farm to artificially pump up the prices of our crops, plus pay them extra for the crops they do farm because the supply is so high and demand so low that the prices are too low (for someone's taste...not sure who ). Sounds like a lot of effort designed to not support people, if you ask me!

That's supposed to artificially inflate prices to keep farmers farming.

Would independant farmers stay farmers without artificially inflated prices? Should agriculture become a government project to reduce food costs? Maybe. I don't see any reason to continue to subsidize farmers and charge Americans through the nose for food when the government could take over. Of course this kind of smacks of the "New deal" practices that turned out horribly wrong in some cases.

But it is something that needs to be addressed. In order to make agriculture highly productive, the modern farmer has to buy outrageously expensive equipment, pesticides, fertilizers. Without these things, production would fall off drastically. We have productive farms at a high cost. (I have relatives that are major farmers and chicken ranchers) and it's very upsetting, to me.

 

[256bits]

Seed for food crops around the world was historically that a farmer can use you use a percentage of the previous year's yield for plantation of this year's crop. GM corporations such as Novartis and Monsanto would have you believe through their public relations that their products will solve all agricultural problems from disease to world hunger. In fact, through the patents granted to these products, no farmer can use a ssed from these products without their consent. These companies are not altruistic to say the least but would like to monopolize the global market. At least Monsanto, but only through intense pressure, has recinded one of its goals to splice an infertility gene in their agriculural poducts - ie a farmer would have to buy seed each and every year. Problems with GM agricultural products are cross-pollination, reduced bio-diversity, health problems in humans, environmental concerns, contamination of the food supply and economics. The older method of picking winners and losers for a better plant was slow and gene-splicing in a lab solves that problem . The return on investment of research that GM corporations want by charging dollars for seed is justified. The subsequent control the seed market is not something I am in favour of.