Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

On Poverty

  1. Oct 6, 2004 #1
    On Poverty

    The sole cause of poverty is the inflation of the human population. When people multiply faster than wealth can be created the end result will always be poverty. Furthermore, the planet cannot sustain billions of people for an extended period of time. We will run out of resources far sooner than we can advance the resources of other planets and extra-planetary bodies. If we continue to inflate at the current rate, future generations will be digging in garbage dumps as if they are gold mines. When they run out of garbage to mine, future generations will have nothing left at all and that will be the end of civilization, of our hard work, and of the achievements of all the enlightened minds of past generations of life.

    All the hard work and toil we have exerted will have been for nothing. Every time a poor person has a child she or he has given birth to new poverty, pure and simple. The welfare system must be eliminated at all cost. This seems directly opposed to the ideals of individual liberty, however, liberty without responsibility is anarchy and chaos. So, until such time when we have a society worthy of liberty, capable and willing to be responsible for their actions and well being, if responsibility is ignored it will have to be imposed. Liberty is not for the animals or the savages as such will just trample it under foot. Entire article

    Max
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So long as people themselves remain a resource (currently largely untapped), the quantity of wealth available will continue increase as fast or faster than the population, without much to limit it.
     
  4. Oct 6, 2004 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The current population growth is unsustainable for more than a couple of centuries.

    In the US, the population growth is a little over 1% per year (this is way higher than most other industrialized nations, who are nearly flat). At 1%, we are talking about a doubling time of about 70 years, or an average human lifespan. So, at the current rate, 2 centuries down (or 3 lifetimes), the population will be 300 million X 2^3 OR over 2 billion !

    Just for fun...if the same growth occured for another couple of centuries, the total (assuming mountains, forests, deserts, fields, swamps... and canyonlands were all inhabited) land area per US citizen will be a square 25 meters on the side ! The US would hold twice as many people as the whole world holds now ! :eek: Speculating further makes for some seriously astronomical numbers. :biggrin:

    People need to start getting into the frame of mind that "growth" may not be such a great idea, after all. And Utah....nevermind !
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  5. Oct 6, 2004 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just thought I'll add :

    Malthus' Dismal Theorem

    If the only check to population is misery, the population will grow until it is miserable enough to check its growth.

    Malthus' Utterly Dismal Theorem

    If the only check to population is misery, the result of any [technological] improvement is ultimately to enable a larger population than before to live in misery, so that [technological] improvement actually increases the sum of misery.
     
  6. Oct 6, 2004 #5
    The only thing limiting our wealth is the amount of energy we control and how efficiently we use it.

    One way to increase the amount of energy would be a Dyson sphere:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
    http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/dysonFAQ.html

    And capitalism is the most efficient way to organize civilization. If in doubt, here are 100+ peer-reviewed papers on the effects of economic freedom:
    http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html
     
  7. Oct 6, 2004 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Are you suggesting we should start EAT each other, russ?

    Slightly more serious, as long as
    1) our ability to extract enough material resources to sustain the population remains unchecked.
    2)That we are capable of expanding our wealth concept to include products whose availability is not strongly limited by material constraints
    I agree with you.
     
  8. Oct 6, 2004 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow...this is the first time I'm coming across the Dyson Sphere, since watching it on Star Trek : TNG.

    This is really a leap into the hypothetical...and way, way into the future.
     
  9. Oct 6, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, I meant that a person's capacity to do useful work is what makes them a resource. This is especially true as the percentage of the economy based on services increases.

    One of the failures of the USSR comes from the fact that the easiest way to generate wealth is to dig it out of the ground - the USSR sustained itself by selling natural resources. Trouble is that if you neglect your people, the consumer portion of the economy will continuously shrink. The disparity eventually gets to large that the economy collapses under its own weight.

    Western capitalistic economies, on the other hand, are consumer driven.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2004
  10. Oct 6, 2004 #9

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That would be wealth in terms of my 2), and I fully agree with you that economic growth in terms of services, has few, if any fundamental constraints on it.
    There remains, however, some material constraints related to 1), though
    (although technological progress may push those back quite a bit)
     
  11. Oct 6, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obviously, fossil fuels are a constraint that needs to be dealt with in relatively short order.
     
  12. Oct 6, 2004 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That's precisely the type of constraints I had in mind.
    Another is to maintain a net, favourable balance (higher yield) between (at present increasing) erosion rates and more efficient agricultural methods.

    (The actual arable land being a material constraint)
     
  13. Oct 6, 2004 #12
  14. Oct 9, 2004 #13
  15. Oct 9, 2004 #14
    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: On Poverty
  1. Global issues - poverty (Replies: 130)

Loading...