The Earth is underpopulated

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
MKULTRA ver II		#41	[-]
Posts: 359 (08/20/08 02:55:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It turns out there are a lot of pdfs and papers out there on exactly this topic: Externalities and fertility policy. I've looked at quite a few abstracts, and while I could have just grabbed the ones that support my views, the topic seems to be inherently ambiguous, with a multitude of different models and assumptions all reaching different kinds of conclusions. I'm not really in a position to judge which ones are the most accurate. I did, however, skim through this one and found it interesting: http://www.awi.uni-heidel...20papers/papers/dp427.pdf It uses a model with a couple of different key variables regarding industry and population types, and where taxes/subsidies can internalize the costs/benefits of both industrial pollution and fertility. It concludes that in one kind of model (probably more similar to developing countries, with "dynastic households") too much fertility is indeed a bad thing. But in another kind of model (one more similar to the western world, with "micro households") the end result is ambiguous. I find that interesting because I had assumed, if we could take infrastructure and eco-system for granted, then maybe a bigger population would be better. The model doesn't support this idea... but it doesn't deny it either. Basically the system becomes too complicated, with too many market interactions, to reach a conclusion. Even if we could support and care for more people in an ecologically sustainable way, it still doesn't follow that more is better... it may or may not be. At any rate, neither model is supposed to be strictly realistic but instead represent different mathematical extremes. Given the real world failing ecosystem and struggling infrastructure, more population seems to lead to suboptimal outcomes for most agents. Last Edited By: MKULTRA ver II 08/20/08 02:59:15. Edited 1 times.
Victor Danilchenko		#42	[-]
Posts: 66 (08/20/08 04:45:09) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	MK wrote: No, it's just the only point that fits your theory. No, that one doesn't fit my theory either, but it's a coherent and reasonable point, albeit a wrong one. it's a point that is not grounded in profound misunderstanding of economics. 2+2=5 is wrong. 2+2=fish is incoherent and idiotic. See the difference? Most of your comments are of the latter kind. MK wrote: We'll take some super-rational game-theoretic genius economic agents, utterly unfettered by quaint notions of morality, utterly selfish. Stop right there. Nothing in economic analysis requires anyone to be unfettered by morality. Nothing at all. In fact, moral considerations loom large in any serious economic analysis of socio-economic issues (as opposed to purely technical issues, which are usually just math). Go vomit your delusions elsewhere, and please spare me the aggravation. This sort of idiocy is exactly why I am ridiculing your feeble attempts to address the issue. MK wrote: Anyhow, hypotheticals aside, you are still ignoring the biggest benefit of having a child: Propagating ones genes. No, I am not ignoring it. I specifically addressed it above. It's a real benefit, an economic but not a monetary one, and it counts when the parents make the decision to reproduce. It counts as much as your love of leisure would count in determining how much value you are getting out of your time, and why you work X hours but no more. MK wrote: Your argument fails to take this into account. It treats the innate, genetic imperative to have children as just some other agent preference, similar to liking the taste of steak. This is false for most people who feel the need to have children, the biological need for them is far greater than simply choosing one type of tasty meal over another. It's just that satisfying that need is a benefit that can't be easily quantified. You bloody idiot!!! It doesn't have to be quantified! The parents themselves quantify it each time they decide whether to have a child or not, because it's an internal factor, not an externality! By definition, each time parents decide to have children, it's because they have decided that the sum of the internal factors, including the desire to reproduce, is a positive one! That's why I don't have to quantify those factors at all -- they are implicit in the parental reproductive decision: each time parents decide to reproduce, it's because the sum of the internal factors is positive. That's why the only thing that matters, for the purposes of analyzing the issue, is to determine the balance of the external factors. When the parents decide to reproduce, it's by definition because they see the reproduction as creating a net gain for them. So the only remaining question is, what does it do for everyone else? And if the effect on everyone else -- the externality balance -- is positive, then the new child is unquestionably a good thing, because this new birth would clearly make the world a better place. Please, PLEASE, stop blabbering random idiotic bullshit, and try to understand! You are making baby jesus cry! MK wrote: By your reasoning there will always be an underproduction of children Yup -- but that's because this will change only if the balance of externalities turns negative -- which i don't think will happen, because i am pretty sure the population will stop growing long before that is the case. The most likely scenario is that we will achieve zero population growth prematurely, and remain in a situation where it would be economically optimal for society to have more children (i.e. each additional child would make the world a better place on average), but where the parents wouldn't have enough internal incentives to have more children. That point will probably come somewhere in the second half of this century. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
Victor Danilchenko		#43	[-]
Posts: 67 (08/20/08 05:05:26) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GammaWaif wrote: This isn't entirely relevant to the discussion, but it is an interesting juxtaposition for me to read your post and have read these articles, within a day of each other: America's Fastest Dying Cities and its sister article In Pictures: America's Fastest-Dying Cities There is certainly a flight from these cities, but it is not population related, it is opportunity related. Kinda fucks up your bellwether a little. Urban flight doesn't happen for reasons of over-population alone. Actually it doesn't fuck up my point at all. I offered the 'urban flight' criterion only to satisfy the falsifiability criterion for the hypothetical supposition of negative externality balance. Sure, urban flight can happen for other reasons as well; but lack of massive urban flight suggests absence of negative externality balance. Plus, in my scenario, the sort of urban flight and dissolution which would indicate negative externality balance, would be from the biggest cities first, because the biggest cities are the ones which most concentrate the negative externalities. That's why I said that we should give this issue another look if New York, London, SF, etc. exterience major drops in population. Gamma wrote: I think what's been bugging me about your argument, as I've been pondering it the past day, is that it's wasteful--wasteful (or at least dismissive) of the resources we already have. As others have mentioned, rather than throw more babies at the problem, why not cultivate the babies we already have? I think genius can be built as well as occurring naturally. If we invested more in our current infrastructure, we would not only glean more genius from our existing brain pool, we would make the world more genius-friendly. But why not do both? Oil is a resource, sunlight is a resource, but humans are a resource too, in fact the most valuable resource of them all; yet you are proposing better exploiting those other resources, while deliberately ignoring and not maximizing the most important one. It's the human resource which made our world possible, which increased Earth's carrying capacity ten-fold in the last century or two. it's more valuable than any other scarce resource in existence. It's more valuable than oil, more valuable than new agricultural land, more valuable than iron or copper or gold, more valuable than pretty much any scarce resource you can think of; and yet giving our children better education is something you support (as i do), and which will cost a lot (say, can we agree on doubling the educational expenditures, constructively of course?), while supporting higher birth rate would probably amount to the order of about extra 1% on the population growth rate and thus about 1% extra educational expenditures per year. You glibly suggest vast increases in our education budget, yet balk at tiny ones which would pay better long-term dividend (exponential functions are like that). So tell me again, why should we choose #1 and not #2? Gamma wrote: Let's say you're a genius, Victor, and I suspect you are. What have you done to save the world? You've certainly done your share of the more-baby-making scheme, no fault there. But are you moved to create some new technology that will improve our global lot? Have you pursued anything like that? If not, why not? just FYI, my job is creating on-line tutoring software. What I do is in fact trying to help more people get a better education -- the 'make better geniuses' half of the fork. Judge for yourself whether it helps. Secondly, it was never about fostering specific geniuses. It's just a game of numbers. More people means more scientists, thus more scientific geniuses, more chances of scientific discoveries, more technological breakthroughs. Some of these additional geniuses will go into physics, and perhaps discover new energy sources. Some will go into biology, and discover new genetic techniques. Some will go into economics, and discover new ways to optimize economy. Some will go into political science, and discover new ways to battle failed governments. Etc. It's been convincingly argued that industrial revolution was made possible by population growth BTW. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
Victor Danilchenko		#44	[-]
Posts: 68 (08/20/08 05:10:22) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	MKULTRA ver II wrote: It turns out there are a lot of pdfs and papers out there on exactly this topic: Externalities and fertility policy. How many of these models quantify the scientific advancement factor? the one you cited certainly doesn't. This means that even absent that factor, the externality balance is ambiguous. Toss the scientific advancement into the mix (not too hard to quantify actually, at least on historic basis), and everything tilts positive. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
Victor Danilchenko		#45	[-]
Posts: 69 (08/20/08 05:34:21) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	here is an interesting paper: Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990 (emphases mine): The nonrivalry of technology, as modeled in the endogenous growth literature, implies that high population spurs technological change. This paper constructs and empirically tests a model of long-run world population growth combining this implication with the Malthusian assumption that technology limits population. The model predicts that over most of history, the growth rate of population will be proportional to its level. Empirical tests support this prediction and show that historically, among societies with no possibility for technological contact, those with larger initial populations have had faster technological change and population growth. Conclusion: Following Lee [19881, this paper constructs an integrated model of population growth and technological change. It assumes that each person's chance of inventing something is independent of population, so that total research output increases in proportion to population. Over the historical period when population was limited by the available technology, the model therefore predicts that the growth rate of population will be approximately proportional to the level of population. Per capita income gradually increases with the growth rate of technology, and eventually this causes population growth to slow. Empirical evidence supports the model: through most of history the growth rate of world population has been approximately proportional to the level of population. Moreover, among societies with no opportunity for technological contact, those with greater initial population attained higher technology levels and population densities. These facts are difficult to reconcile with prevailing growth models in which technological change is independent of population. ... Although the model is designed to reflect historical, rather than current conditions, it is worth considering its implications for the present, both for policy and for growth theory. If research productivity per person depends on income, the short-run impact of pro-natal policies, such as tax allowances for children, on the speed of technological change is ambiguous. For example, child subsidies that increase birth rates might lower research productivity per capita. However, in the long run this model implies that faster population growth leads to faster technological change. For ф = 1,the growth rate of technology equals research productivity per capita times population, and the one-time fall in research productivity per capita caused by an increase in fertility will eventually be outweighed by the cumulative effect of population growth. For ф < 1,Jones shows that the asymptotic growth rate of technology is proportional to the growth rate of population and is independent of research productivity per capita. However, while pro-natal policies may be growth-enhancing from the point of view of the world as a whole, individual countries may wish to let their citizens choose the privately optimal family size and to free ride off technological innovations made in other countries. Moreover, the model used in this paper does not allow for either exhaustible natural resources or for an ultimate limit on the level of technology, and in models incorporating these features, population growth could reduce long-run income per capita. Thus, the model should not be taken as a call for increased population. It does suggest, however, that economists should conduct further research to measure the growth and welfare effects of population growth under nonrival technology, rather than simply following conventional wisdom and concentrating on the negative effects of population growth. The model's implications for growth theory are clearer. Most models of endogenous technological change imply that all else equal, higher population spurs technological change. This result, I believe, is due not to any quirk of modeling, but to the fundamental nonrivalry of technology as described by Romer. Perhaps it is possible to argue that technological change is independent of population, and to construct some other explanation of why the growth rate of population has historically been proportional to its level. Perhaps it is even possible to explain why among technologically separate regions, those with higher population have had faster technological change. However, given that our theoretical models of technological change predict that higher population leads to faster technological change, what is noteworthy is not that other models might be able to explain the data, but that an extremely stylized model, based on theory, provides such a good description of the data over such a long period. Endogenous growth theorists have dismissed the population implications of their models as empirically untenable. This paper suggests that we should take them seriously. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto. Last Edited By: Victor Danilchenko 08/20/08 05:49:04. Edited 1 times.
GammaWaif		#46	[-]
Posts: 100 (08/20/08 06:29:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Victor Danilchenko wrote: Gamma wrote: I think what's been bugging me about your argument, as I've been pondering it the past day, is that it's wasteful--wasteful (or at least dismissive) of the resources we already have. As others have mentioned, rather than throw more babies at the problem, why not cultivate the babies we already have? I think genius can be built as well as occurring naturally. If we invested more in our current infrastructure, we would not only glean more genius from our existing brain pool, we would make the world more genius-friendly. But why not do both? Oil is a resource, sunlight is a resource, but humans are a resource too, in fact the most valuable resource of them all; yet you are proposing better exploiting those other resources, while deliberately ignoring and not maximizing the most important one. No. I guess I wasn't clear. I agree with you that humans are the valuable resource, see the yellow. So, I'm not proposing merely exploiting other resources, I'm proposing investing in them to more efficiently and effectively exploit our existing human capital. Your argument appeared to me to be for future human capital. I don't think we communicated here. There is no either or. I was wanting you to say, "why not do both?" and you hadn't, until now.
MKULTRA ver II		#47	[-]
Posts: 360 (08/20/08 06:33:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Victor, you're desperation is becoming laughable, as you resort to trying to emotionally unsettle your opponent with insults and such. It's amusing in small doses, and I'm sure the sound and fury startles the unaware. I, however, am unmoved. To me, it just shows your lack of genuine argument. Buffoonery and comic bluster aside, let's continue with the rest of your posts. Stop right there. Nothing in economic analysis requires anyone to be unfettered by morality. Nothing at all. In fact, moral considerations loom large in any serious economic analysis of socio-economic issues (as opposed to purely technical issues, which are usually just math). Go vomit your delusions elsewhere, and please spare me the aggravation. If that were the case, then there would be serious problems for economics as a science, since moral choices are essentailly arbitrary: you can make a a moral model of almost any form you desire. A purely rational game theoretic entity has a goal, rules to obey and a desire to optimize it's utility, and that's it. That's why something like an externality can exist. That's why a company can gleefully dump toxic waste in a river, or a used car salesman can sell a lemon. Their behaviour isn't economically irrational, just immoral. I didn't say behaving like a rational agent "requires" immoral behaviour, what I pointed out is that it is consistent with immoral behaviour. Cutting down a forest and wiping out species for the resources that can be extracted is an example of this. When the parents decide to reproduce, it's by definition because they see the reproduction as creating a net gain for them. So the only remaining question is, what does it do for everyone else? No, the question is also how large is the externality. If it is tiny, then the amount people in your version are supposedly under-producing children will also be tiny. In order to judge how large the externality is, we need to judge the cost/benefit others get versus the cost/benefit the parent gets. And as I've stated, this benefit can not simply be judged according to money spent or gained, since the main benefit to parents is that they've simply propagated their genetic line, satisfying one of the most primal life instincts they have. So, from that point of view, we have a massive benefit to the parents. This implies that if there is any negative externality (which I consider unlikely) then it is a small one, and so the amount people are underproducing children will also be tiny. And on that point, you still haven't shown that children are a negative externality, that they benefit others. They have a lot of complex interactions, including driving down wages, increasing pollution, reducing collectively held global wealth (such as in our non-renewable resources and minerals.) And all your data, including the quotes you've used from you're new post, all relate to the old world that still had plenty of land, plenty of species, and no global warming. It may be fine to have ten kids and pump out a hundred tonnes of CO2 if you're in 1900 and far away from any environmental tipping point, but this is not that time. MK: By your reasoning there will always be an underproduction of children Victor: Yup -- but that's because this will change only if the balance of externalities turns negative Like I said, your analysis can see no limit to the how many babies is too many. Even every couple in the world having 100 babies (obviously not realistic) still leads, by your reasoning, to the conclusion that there are not enough children. How many of these models quantify the scientific advancement factor? the one you cited certainly doesn't. Probably because it would be laughed at if it did, given the unpredictability of such things. And an important point about modern technological advancements is that their negative potential dwarfs anything in history except the nuclear bomb, and we can't even be sure that won't be trumped. In fact, I have to say that as far as predictions beyond 50 years go, given the potential breakthroughs in AI, genetics, robotics, weaponry, surgery, etc... all bets are pretty much off. 2050 is about as far as can be realistically speculated about with any hope of a degree of accuracy. I don't want to get too sci-fi... but I do wonder, when AIs come along that make human genius look like a chimpanzee that ate too much lead paint... are they really going to care one iota about us? That's one reason by extrapolating technology and "genius" more than 50 years is just total bunk. Regarding the paper you linked too, as I said you can find a paper for everything if you look hard enough. It was written 15 years ago, and on my search I don't see "pollution," or "CO2" mentioned once (though my google version cuts off after page 28). In other words, it isn't taking the modern situation into account at all. And it says "all else equal, higher population spurs technological change", but the point I've repeatedly made is that it is no longer feasible to imagine significantly boosting population at the same time as keeping everything else equal. There simply isn't the resources and infrastructure to maintain the necessarily comparative equality that the paper's model needs to have any possible validity.
Victor Danilchenko		#48	[-]
Posts: 70 (08/20/08 06:41:02) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	GammaWaif wrote: No. I guess I wasn't clear. I agree with you that humans are the valuable resource, see the yellow. So, I'm not proposing merely exploiting other resources, I'm proposing investing in them to more efficiently and effectively exploit our existing human capital. Your argument appeared to me to be for future human capital. I don't think we communicated here. There is no either or. I was wanting you to say, "why not do both?" and you hadn't, until now. Actually I had, very early on in the thread: Victor wrote: But then we would derive even more benefit from both dedicating more money to education, and increasing population growth rate. Why should it be 'more geniuses or better geniuses'? Why not both? The effect of the population growth rate would have a negligible effect on the cost, compared to the effect of the ten-fold expenditure increase. i didn't bring it up on my own because it's irrelevant. Population growth is a good idea regardless of whether we spend more money on education. Increased education spendings is a good idea, but one which is not relevant to my argument. The world is full of good ideas which aren't relevant to my argument, and I am not in any way obligated to offer them up. Furthermore, you seemed to have offered the "more education" idea in contrast to population growth. I think the implication was quite clear that you were proposing more education spendings instead of higher population growth. Recall your own words: Gamma wrote: As others have mentioned, rather than throw more babies at the problem, why not cultivate the babies we already have? what do you think the words 'rather than' mean, Gamma? You are an editor, right? You know full well how to phrase your ideas accurately. You are fully aware of the difference between 'rather than' and 'in addition to', for example. Even if you wrote something other than what you meant to write, you certainly can't blame me for reading your own words as written. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
Victor Danilchenko		#49	[-]
Posts: 71 (08/20/08 06:43:22) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	MK, I am not going to put up with your economic obtuseness any longer. I already gave you way too many chances to evidence any actual thought. I am putting you on ignore. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
samadhim7		#50	[-]
Posts: 315 (08/20/08 11:35:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Victor, sam: The example of Easter Island wasn't about having technologically smarter people. It was not a problem of technology but a political problem, knowing your limits and living within them. Victor: Easter island had limits we don't. The earth's carrying capacity a century and change ago was just about 1 billion. Where is that limit now? Are you saying the earth has no limit in terms of carrying capacity in the context of its technology? And isn't it a possibility that it is being exceeded given the present use of our technology? And if that is the case, wouldn't it be more likely that the solution would be to amend the use of that technology rather than to further overload the carrying capacity and continue with irresponsible use of technology? sam: And for the record, we are NOT living sustainably. Victor: if by 'sustainably' you mean being able to live within a single fixed pool of resources, why should we? Sure, oil is running out. Nuclear power is here, and fusion is just a few decades away. 'Sustainability' is a very stretchable notion, and scientific advancement is constantly stretching it. But instead of those ever-expanding limits, you and your kind want to put us in a straightjacket. The point isn't to come up with some fixed number but to implement sustainable practices. That isn't being done and increasing population growth does not address sustainable practices. sam: Singapore imports what they need to survive. What happens when they can't do that anymore? Victor: it will be about as much a miracle as you actually understanding anything about economics. You said Singapore is sustainable. It isn't. I am well aware of the global economy. But talking about sustainability within a single city is a misuse of the term. Them being unable to import any more simply isn't going to happen, at least not for economic reasons. That's not how economics works. Then don't talk about a single city being sustainable. sam: It isn't technology that we lack. It is the political will to live sustainably, to deal with those problems, which in fact have a lot to do with using technology irresponsibly. Victor: malthus said the exact same thing. Malthusian meltdown was originally forecast to occur at about 1bn population, IIRC. Since then, just like Jehova's Witnesses' armageddon, the goalpost was moved on a regular basis, but somehow we nver came close to it. It seems like you are the kind of guy who would be saying "But JWs could be right this time..." Sustainability is not trumped by new technology. Pesticide use can increase food production. That doesn't mean it is sustainable. Current power generation technology is not sustainable. An ever-expanding population doesn't address that problem, it exacerbates it. Sustainable power generation technology already exists. An expanding population is not a guarantee of its implementation and in fact makes it more problematic. sam: The problem isn't coming up with solutions. We know the solutions. The problem is there is no political will nor consensus to actually implement them. Victor: That's why we aren't using genetically engineered crops, hydroponics, etc. Because we lack the will to apply our solutions. I've already said that sustainable technologies exist. Are they being used on a scale that will avert a global crisis in the near future? No, they aren't. Can they be? Maybe. Will an expanding population bring that about? No, it won't. If you want to hate the humanity, do it in a private corner, dude. Encouraging unrestricted population growth and hoping for the best is more inhumane than working to develop and implement sustainable technologies. sam: What is getting better? Victor: Oh, let's see. Food issue? Gen-mod crops. Goods distribution? Computerized distribution networks. Yet food prices are rising precipitously worldwide, people are starving and with global warming making megadroughts more likely, that trend is only beginning. Low incomes? World's GDP is growing steadily and quite rapidly. Yes, at the expense of the environment. China's growth is being accompanied by catastrophic environmental degradation. That is unsustainable. Environment? Getting cleaned up. People are aware of the environmental problems. It doesn't mean they are being effectively addressed on a scale that will avert a crisis in the near future. Your solution to increase population growth only adds more fuel to the fire. The solutions already exist. More population is not going to make it easier to implement them, it will make it more difficult. sam: Don't talk about population density and China without mentioning vast areas are uninhabitable deserts (which are growing by the way) and mountains. As opposed to Switzerland, which is all fertile flatlands... Look at the population density of Chinese cities versus Swiss cities, then get back to me. sam: Do you really want to compare Chinese cities with cities in Switzerland? Have you been following the news lately about the pollution in Beijing? Do you think the same stories would have been playing in the news if the Olympics had been held in Zurich? Victor: I have said quite clearly that there is the pollution hump. China is just around peak right now, it's already showing signs of beginning to clean up. Is it? Or are you being pollyanna? Check out this series in the NY Times if you really want to know what's going on in China. Of course it is dirtier than Switzerland -- the latter has long past that point, and their environment is quite clean now. This comes with economic growth and prosperity however. And their population isn't increasing as per your thesis. Sustainable practices are not a matter of increasing population but rather a stable population. So if you want to prevent pollution, your choice is either to keep the third world poor and undeveloped, or to bring them into the developed world ASAP. I think we both know which option you prefer. Now you are agreeing with me. Seems I'm not as stupid as you think. Development does not require an increasing population. Why does China have a one-child policy if increasing population were the key to development? And would China's development be easier or more difficult if they had an additional three hundred million people which would be the case without their one-child policy? San Francisco, London, New York -- all major occidental cities used to be horribly dirty and polluted. not any more. You live in SF. How's the smog situation been doing over the last few years? Had many acid rains lately? Look at the list of the world's most polluted cities. See any developed-world cities there? London used to be fucking covered in soot. Where is all that now? You are making my point for me! Pollution problems are addressed by sustainable practices, not by increasing population. San Francisco's population has been steady for decades, why is that? Why is it that the birth rate in developed nations is going down, not up? Sustainable practices lead to a stable population, not the opposite. sam: I'm really surprised at you. Victor: Tends to happen a lot when reason confronts your faith, dude. You are the one professing faith in an increasing population. Sustainable practices is about reason, not faith. sam: But it just goes to show that being smart can cause just as many problems as it solves. Victor: You should take lessons from Martin Luther. He was much more concise. Reason is a whore, isn't that what you are trying to say? If reason contradicts your delusion, then down with reason! Where is your reason? Without sustainable practices, an increasing population will clearly make matters worse, not better. And you don't need an increasing population to implement sustainable practices.
GammaWaif		#51	[-]
Posts: 102 (08/20/08 12:29:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Victor Danilchenko wrote: GammaWaif wrote: No. I guess I wasn't clear. I agree with you that humans are the valuable resource, see the yellow. So, I'm not proposing merely exploiting other resources, I'm proposing investing in them to more efficiently and effectively exploit our existing human capital. Your argument appeared to me to be for future human capital. I don't think we communicated here. There is no either or. I was wanting you to say, "why not do both?" and you hadn't, until now. Actually I had, very early on in the thread: Victor wrote: But then we would derive even more benefit from both dedicating more money to education, and increasing population growth rate. Why should it be 'more geniuses or better geniuses'? Why not both? The effect of the population growth rate would have a negligible effect on the cost, compared to the effect of the ten-fold expenditure increase. Sorry. Missed it. Victor Danilchenko wrote: Gamma wrote: As others have mentioned, rather than throw more babies at the problem, why not cultivate the babies we already have? what do you think the words 'rather than' mean, Gamma? You are an editor, right? You know full well how to phrase your ideas accurately. You are fully aware of the difference between 'rather than' and 'in addition to', for example. Even if you wrote something other than what you meant to write, you certainly can't blame me for reading your own words as written. Having missed the former, my latter comment was similarly misinformed.
Victor Danilchenko		#52	[-]
Posts: 72 (08/20/08 12:58:05) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	sam wrote: Are you saying the earth has no limit in terms of carrying capacity in the context of its technology? No, i am saying that we are nowhere near that. of course Earth has a physical limit on how much water, for example, we can consume without totally ruining the ecosystem. The salient point is that we are nowhere near that level now. Last i checked, the carrying capacity of Earth was nearly double the current population, and still increasing due to new technologies. sam wrote: You said Singapore is sustainable. It isn't. I am well aware of the global economy. But talking about sustainability within a single city is a misuse of the term. You missed the point. We live in a global world. Brazil exports cattle to Japan. America sells corn to Australia. You name it. Globalization has greatly increased the carrying capacity of the world. sam wrote: Sustainability is not trumped by new technology. Pesticide use can increase food production. That doesn't mean it is sustainable. Current power generation technology is not sustainable. Existing nuclear power resources are enough to provide us with energy for another half a millenium. By then we will almost assuredly have fusion power available. You call that unsustainable? You are deluded. sam wrote: Will an expanding population bring that about? No, it won't. No, it won't bring about what you call 'sustainable technologies' by some arbitrary standard. Instead, it will bring about our use of technologies which allow us to comfortably survive and grow within the context of our environment. Your real beef here is same as MK's -- those damn sheeple just don't know what's good for them like you do! They don't want to give up fossil and nuclear power in favor of wind and solar! Wind and solar energy will have their day, dude -- when they become cheaper than the alternatives. That's kinda, you know, how the market works. Why on earth should we deliberately use the more expensive energy sources when cheaper ones are available? You are simply asking people to throw money out the window for the sake of your ideological prejudice. sam wrote: Yet food prices are rising precipitously worldwide, people are starving and with global warming making megadroughts more likely, that trend is only beginning. Ah yes, another doomsday forecast. Anything special to make it different from all the other doomsday forecasts? Food prices rising are a good thing for the third world, dude. Third world generally lacking high-tech infrastructure, agricultural production tends to be their comparative advantage. As such, food prices rising actually benefits the third world overall, even though of course the benefit isn't allocated evenly. Sure, countries which export, say, rapeseed and import corn, are having temporary trouble. Watch them switch to growing corn. You are clueless about economics. sam wrote: Yes, at the expense of the environment. China's growth is being accompanied by catastrophic environmental degradation. That is unsustainable. Not does it have to be sustained, silly. As China gets richer, they will clean up, just as the occidental countries did. Or are you saying that we in the west should have our high living standard, but it's too good for those damn brown people? sam wrote: Look at the population density of Chinese cities versus Swiss cities, then get back to me. What do the cities have to do with it? Your objection was that a significant chink of China is not suitable for agricultural cultivation; but neither is a significant chunk of Switzerland. In fact, only 10% of Swiss territory is arable land, compared to 15% of China's, so Switzerland has nearly twice the population per unit of arable land (~90% more) -- and yet Switzerland is thriving. Incidentally, India has even lower population density per unit of arable land -- about 686/km2, to Switzerland's 1760 and China's 920; Switzeland has about 157% more than India. Try to deal with reality, dude. sam wrote: Is it? Or are you being pollyanna? Check out this series in the NY Times if you really want to know what's going on in China. Oh, I do know what's going on in China. It's not nearly as bad as what was going on in London a century and a half ago. See the Swiss numbers above. Switzerland has higher population density than China both in absolute terms, and normalized for arable land, yet Zurich is no Beijing; and London (UK has 246 ppl/km2, or 1070ppl/arable km2, both higher than China's) is no Shanghai. When you understand why, perhaps you will get a fucking clue. sam wrote: And their population isn't increasing as per your thesis. Sustainable practices are not a matter of increasing population but rather a stable population. So if swiss population was 1bn but stable, it would be OK in your book? Do you realize what a dumb statement you just made? sam wrote: Now you are agreeing with me. Seems I'm not as stupid as you think. Development does not require an increasing population. Why does China have a one-child policy if increasing population were the key to development? Ask them. Their population density is quite a bit lower than that of very many european countries. I think the despotic oligarchy has something to do with it. sam wrote: You are making my point for me! Pollution problems are addressed by sustainable practices, not by increasing population. You still aren't thinking. Those cities got cleaned up even though population in the west increased tremendously. The technological growth (which comes from population growth) has a much bigger effect on pollution than lowering the population growth itself. sam wrote: Why is it that the birth rate in developed nations is going down, not up? Because the positive externalities of childbirth are external, duh. How many times do I have to fucking explain it? My point is exactly that we aren't growing as fast as we should be. sam wrote: Where is your reason? Without sustainable practices, an increasing population will clearly make matters worse, not better. And you don't need an increasing population to implement sustainable practices. And yet whether or not we implement 'sustainable practices' -- at least the subset of them which is sane rather than which conforms to your ideological prejudice -- we would still be better off with higher population growth. See the paper I linked and quoted above. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
samadhim7		#53	[-]
Posts: 317 (08/20/08 15:17:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	sam : Are you saying the earth has no limit in terms of carrying capacity in the context of its technology? Victor: No, i am saying that we are nowhere near that. of course Earth has a physical limit on how much water, for example, we can consume without totally ruining the ecosystem. The salient point is that we are nowhere near that level now. Last i checked, the carrying capacity of Earth was nearly double the current population, and still increasing due to new technologies. The carrying capacity depends on the present technology and how it is being used, does it not? You can't talk about the carrying capacity of 2050 technology if we are never going to get to 2050. How the technology is used right now is not addressed by increasing the population using it. sam : You said Singapore is sustainable. It isn't. I am well aware of the global economy. But talking about sustainability within a single city is a misuse of the term. Victor: You missed the point. We live in a global world. Brazil exports cattle to Japan. America sells corn to Australia. You name it. Globalization has greatly increased the carrying capacity of the world. No doubt. My point remains that carrying capacity of the present technology and its application is exceeded by the population. The carrying capacity of efficiently-used, sustainable technology may be greater than today's population but so what? That isn't what we're using and given the rate of environmental deterioration, we may never have the chance to actually make the transition. Increasing population only serves to close the transitioning window commensurately. sam: Sustainability is not trumped by new technology. Pesticide use can increase food production. That doesn't mean it is sustainable. Current power generation technology is not sustainable. Victor: Existing nuclear power resources are enough to provide us with energy for another half a millenium. By then we will almost assuredly have fusion power available. You call that unsustainable? You are deluded. Nuclear power currently requires about ten years to come online. It also requires upwards of $10 billion for the construction of a single plant which makes it economically inefficient. Given that reality, nuclear power is not going to be a factor in transitioning to sustainable energy production. sam: I've already said that sustainable technologies exist. Are they being used on a scale that will avert a global crisis in the near future? No, they aren't. Can they be? Maybe. Will an expanding population bring that about? No, it won't. Victor: No, it won't bring about what you call 'sustainable technologies' by some arbitrary standard. Instead, it will bring about our use of technologies which allow us to comfortably survive and grow within the context of our environment. How will it do that? An expanding population doesn't address usage. You don't need to expand the population to address usage right now. Your real beef here is same as MK's -- those damn sheeple just don't know what's good for them like you do! They don't want to give up fossil and nuclear power in favor of wind and solar! We live in a complex society. Ordinary people should not be expected to know what best constitutes efficient, sustainable power generation nor should they be willing to contribute to it when government subsidizes and encourages the use of cheap fossil fuels. In addition, market-driven forces have yet to factor in sustainability. Why do you think China relies on coal to power their development? Wind and solar energy will have their day, dude -- when they become cheaper than the alternatives. That's kinda, you know, how the market works. Why on earth should we deliberately use the more expensive energy sources when cheaper ones are available? You are simply asking people to throw money out the window for the sake of your ideological prejudice. If cheap power were the only criteria, we would still be burning coal and continue to do so for the next 200 years. Of course, civilization would be long gone before then. Cheap doesn't mean sustainable. The market is always short-sighted as it is geared towards profit. Factoring in sustainability is something the market will always resist because, guess what? Someone has to pay for it. sam: Yet food prices are rising precipitously worldwide, people are starving and with global warming making megadroughts more likely, that trend is only beginning. Victor: Ah yes, another doomsday forecast. Anything special to make it different from all the other doomsday forecasts? The science of global warming is what it is. Ignore it at your peril. Food prices rising are a good thing for the third world, dude. Third world generally lacking high-tech infrastructure, agricultural production tends to be their comparative advantage. As such, food prices rising actually benefits the third world overall, even though of course the benefit isn't allocated evenly. Sure, countries which export, say, rapeseed and import corn, are having temporary trouble. Watch them switch to growing corn. You were the one who brought up that things were getting better vis-a-vis food production. In fact, food prices are rising which indicates shortages. So things aren't getting better in terms of macro-production, are they? If your examples were having an impact, prices would be going down. Seems your idea of "getting better" is in need of some adjustment, isn't it? sam: Yes, at the expense of the environment. China's growth is being accompanied by catastrophic environmental degradation. That is unsustainable. Victor: Not does it have to be sustained, silly. As China gets richer, they will clean up, just as the occidental countries did. Or are you saying that we in the west should have our high living standard, but it's too good for those damn brown people? I am saying that China's increase in GDP so far has depended on environmental degradation. The GDP is not rising when you factor that in. Once they start paying the actual cost of air and water pollution, soil degradation, desertification, deforestation and habitat destruction, you won't be so cavalier with your assessment. sam wrote: Look at the population density of Chinese cities versus Swiss cities, then get back to me. Victor: What do the cities have to do with it? Your objection was that a significant chink of China is not suitable for agricultural cultivation; but neither is a significant chunk of Switzerland. In fact, only 10% of Swiss territory is arable land, compared to 15% of China's, so Switzerland has nearly twice the population per unit of arable land (~90% more) -- and yet Switzerland is thriving. You compared the population density of China with Switzerland. It isn't about how much arable land each country has, it is about how crowded it is where the people actually live. Switzerland is nowhere near as crowded as China where people actually live. Incidentally, India has even lower population density per unit of arable land -- about 686/km2, to Switzerland's 1760 and China's 920; Switzeland has about 157% more than India. Try to deal with reality, dude. You have changed the subject. Population density has to do with overcrowding, not with arable land. sam: Is it? Or are you being pollyanna? Check out this series in the NY Times if you really want to know what's going on in China. Victor: Oh, I do know what's going on in China. It's not nearly as bad as what was going on in London a century and a half ago. Really? Did you even bother to glance at the articles? You want to compare 19th century London with 21st century Beijing which has maybe 20 or 30 times the population? And what about the hundred other cities in China where England had no other city like London? What did it cost to clean up London? What will it cost to clean up China? How long did it take to clean up London? How much time is there to clean up China? See the Swiss numbers above. Switzerland has higher population density than China both in absolute terms, and normalized for arable land, yet Zurich is no Beijing; and London (UK has 246 ppl/km2, or 1070ppl/arable km2, both higher than China's) is no Shanghai. It is meaningless to talk about the population density of Switzerland versus China. You have to talk about where the people actually live. What is the population density of Zurich or Bern versus the population density of Beijing or Shanghai? Even those numbers may be misleading depending on housing quality, infrastructure and access to resources. sam: And their population isn't increasing as per your thesis. Sustainable practices are not a matter of increasing population but rather a stable population. Victor: So if swiss population was 1bn but stable, it would be OK in your book? Do you realize what a dumb statement you just made? But it didn't stabilize at 1bn, did it? Why didn't it, since according to you, increasing population means greater resources for all. sam: Now you are agreeing with me. Seems I'm not as stupid as you think. Development does not require an increasing population. Why does China have a one-child policy if increasing population were the key to development? Victor: Ask them. Their population density is quite a bit lower than that of very many european countries. I think the despotic oligarchy has something to do with it. Notice how you ignore direct experience in favor of your theory. Do you think they just arbitrarily decided to implement the one-child policy because they didn't like kids? Why isn't India developing faster than China since they have no restriction on population growth? sam: You are making my point for me! Pollution problems are addressed by sustainable practices, not by increasing population. Victor: You still aren't thinking. Those cities got cleaned up even though population in the west increased tremendously. The technological growth (which comes from population growth) has a much bigger effect on pollution than lowering the population growth itself. You haven't shown that increasing population was the decisive factor. Isn't it more likely that the decisive factor was cutting back on the use of coal and regulating their pollution? What does cutting back on the use of coal have to do with increasing population? sam: Why is it that the birth rate in developed nations is going down, not up? Victor: Because the positive externalities of childbirth are external, duh. How many times do I have to fucking explain it? My point is exactly that we aren't growing as fast as we should be. Yet your are arguing against experience. If rising birthrates were advantageous in developed countries, they would be happening. I believe this is your argument when it comes to economics. Why isn't your argument when it comes to demographics? sam: Where is your reason? Without sustainable practices, an increasing population will clearly make matters worse, not better. And you don't need an increasing population to implement sustainable practices. Victor: And yet whether or not we implement 'sustainable practices' -- at least the subset of them which is sane rather than which conforms to your ideological prejudice -- we would still be better off with higher population growth. See the paper I linked and quoted above. Whether we in developed countries would be better off or not is conjecture. Personally, it's crowded enough where I live. More people isn't what we need, but we could certainly use better government. Last Edited By: samadhim7 08/20/08 15:30:12. Edited 1 times.
Victor Danilchenko		#54	[-]
Posts: 73 (08/20/08 16:19:42) Forethought Venus Wednesday Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	sam wrote: The carrying capacity depends on the present technology and how it is being used, does it not? under current technology, Earth can sustain around 10bn population; or at least this was the number I looked up a few years ago, and it has doubtlessly increased. I understand that you desperately want humans to be in danger of extinction, but we just aren't, sorry to disappoint. sam wrote: My point remains that carrying capacity of the present technology and its application is exceeded by the population. The carrying capacity of efficiently-used, sustainable technology may be greater than today's population but so what? So what?!. We do what we need to do to survive comfortably. We don't use the technology the way you want it used because your wants are delusional, and there's no need to do it. When the need manifests, the usage patterns will change. Your real criterion here is "people aren't doing what i think they ought to be doing". Laughable. Who appointed you the Central Planner of the World? sam wrote: Nuclear power currently requires about ten years to come online. It also requires upwards of $10 billion for the construction of a single plant which makes it economically inefficient. in what fantastical reality does that constitute being economically inefficient? The total cost of electricity from new nuclear plants in USA is estimated to be somewhere between $0.059/kwh and $0.067/kwh. I am currently paying $0.14/kwh, of which about half is the actual energy generation cost. UK did a comprehensive cost analysis (emphasis mine): A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (€45.44) per tonne CO₂ for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was £0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.054/kWh - offshore wind is £0.072/kWh - nuclear power remained at £0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO₂. (Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.) Dude, you are a lunatic. An ignorant, faith-soaked, deluded lunatic. sam wrote: Given that reality, nuclear power is not going to be a factor in transitioning to sustainable energy production. Because in sam-world, 23 is more than 54... sam wrote: We live in a complex society. Ordinary people should not be expected to know what best constitutes efficient Well, you certainly don't, as your egregious ignorance demonstrates. sam wrote: The market is always short-sighted as it is geared towards profit. Factoring in sustainability is something the market will always resist because, guess what? Someone has to pay for it. What you are describing is called 'externalities', of which pollution is a classic example. if you understood anything about economics, you'd understand how idiotic your statement is. You see, when government internalizes the externalities (e.g. by cap-n-trade scheme), it actually makes the market more efficient, closer to the idealized optimal market. sam wrote: The science of global warming is what it is. Ignore it at your peril. i don't ignore it, dude. i just realized that we will address the GW problem via science, not via cutting population growth. Population growth simply won't matter fast enough. Furthermore, the world's worst pollutants -- USA and China -- aren't growing fast at all (world average is 1.17%/yr, USA's is 0.97%/yr, China's is 0.58%/yr). If you cut population growth, it will be in countries which don't do much polluting anyway. As I said earlier, you misanthropes want to punish the brown people. But you didn't think about that, did you? You never think. sam wrote: You were the one who brought up that things were getting better vis-a-vis food production. In fact, food prices are rising which indicates shortages. it can indicate less supply -- or it can indicate more demand -- or it can indicate higher costs. In fact, the latter two factors are probably more likely. Demand for food increaseas as living standards impove world-wide, and as economies through the world grow, the albor costs increase as well. Seriously, pick up a fucking economics textbook. It won't bite, and you just might reduce your propensity to shove your foot in your mouth. sam wrote: I am saying that China's increase in GDP so far has depended on environmental degradation. The GDP is not rising when you factor that in. And of course you have actual evidence to back up that claim, right? No? Ah, you are once again talking out of your ass? i thought so. sam wrote: You compared the population density of China with Switzerland. It isn't about how much arable land each country has, it is about how crowded it is where the people actually live. Switzerland is nowhere near as crowded as China where people actually live. So? people choose how to congregate. As long as the congregation is voluntary, i.e. as long as there are alternatives, it's a given that people derive more benefit from congregating than from dispersing. By your idiotic standard, Singapore should be considered in isolation -- because that's where the people are; but of course the relationship between the highly- and low-populated area is what economy runs on. Man, you are slow... I had forgotten just how imprevious to reasoning you are. sam wrote: You have changed the subject. Population density has to do with overcrowding, not with arable land. it has to do with average population density, not with population density in the cities. As long as there is avasilable land yet people choose to live in the cities, this means that they derive more utility from living in the cities than from living in low-population-density areas. But of course you know better than everyone else what each person needs. All hail The Central Planner! sam wrote: What did it cost to clean up London? What will it cost to clean up China? How long did it take to clean up London? How much time is there to clean up China? Well, that's up to the chinese to decide, no? It's their money and (mostly) their environment. You are still ignoring the key point. No matter which way you slice it, China has lower population density than any number of european countries. Clearly it's not the population density that's the problem. sam wrote: You have to talk about where the people actually live. No, you don't. People choose to congregate into the cities if they derive more benefit from doing so that from dispersing. As such, if China dispersed to the level of Switzerland, they would actually be even worse off than they are right now. In China, people move to the cities because it benefits them, and they would be worse off back in the countryside. You didn't think, sam. You never do. sam wrote: But it didn't stabilize at 1bn, did it? Why didn't it, since according to you, increasing population means greater resources for all. Wow, you are dumb. Kick your fucking brain itno gear! The 1bn number was a counter-example to expose the idiocy of your sattement that it's not the size byut the growth rate which matters. Obviously Switzerland doesn't have 1bn, so of course it didn't stabilize at that level. sam wrote: Notice how you ignore direct experience in favor of your theory. Do you think they just arbitrarily decided to implement the one-child policy because they didn't like kids? Why isn't India developing faster than China since they have no restriction on population growth? Because India imposes highly restrictive trade tariffs, dummy. If you cared about facts, you would know that. sam wrote: You haven't shown that increasing population was the decisive factor. yes, I already have. See the paper about population growth vs. technological advancement I linked and cited above. sam wrote: Isn't it more likely that the decisive factor was cutting back on the use of coal and regulating their pollution? What does cutting back on the use of coal have to do with increasing population? That's exactly the point, idiot: everything. Increasing popualtion drives technological advancement, and the technological advancement was what allowed them to cut down on the use of coal. sam wrote: Yet your are arguing against experience. If rising birthrates were advantageous in developed countries, they would be happening. it's happening. On average, the third-world economies are growing fast. Furthermore, the paper I linked and cited above demonstrates quite convincingly that more people means faster scientific advanmcement and faster economic growth. sam wrote: Personally, it's crowded enough where I live. Then move out! Ah, but that's where your job is, right? Jobs are in the cities. meditate on that, grasshoppa. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
samadhim7

Yuku free message boards

The Earth is underpopulated