The Amazing Droopy

[_karl61]

185,000 people die each day
350,000 are born
go figure

[_Some Schmo]

Who do I value more? What do I value more? These are hard questions. How many children can I save by consuming resources that currently needed by other species for life?

So, you'd sacrifice other living species over people who aren't even alive yet? Just what species are we talking about?

I think the real question is, who do we favor: the live kids or the unborn? Just like the mother and the unborn child who endangers her life, I've got to go with the living over the unborn.

---

This whole issue of overpopulation and the way people defend/deny it reminds me and reinforces humanity's warped view of death. As a species, we certainly do not honor it enough. We're too busy spending money on preserving life rather than making death and the years leading up to it more comfortable. We should be looking to improve the quality of life, not the quantity.

Now I'll just sit here and wait for some jackass to come along and ask me if I'm willing to give up my life for the sake of others, demonstrating they've completely missed the point, as usual. I'll just get it out of the way up front and let everyone know that when it's my time, I'm willing to go gracefully. There will be a strict DNR on me; trust me. They can pull the plug as soon as possible. There's no point living and taking up space (and money) if I'm not conscious.





_____________

[_asbestosman]

So, you'd sacrifice other living species over people who aren't even alive yet? Just what species are we talking about?

Well, I'd sacrifice other life that hasn't been born yet over people who haven't been born yet--at least to some extent. That is, if humans need more room to keep growing, I'm probably willing to give more room at the expense of other species than would a conservationalist. That said, I do think people need to understand and carefully weigh the consequences of their actions. I just happen to think that there's plenty of room to argue about which end scenarios are acceptable. In my mind, some acceptable end-scenarios aren't very fair to non-human life and frankly I'm fine with being biased in that manner.

I think the real question is, who do we favor: the live kids or the unborn? Just like the mother and the unborn child who endangers her life, I've got to go with the living over the unborn.

It's more complicated than that. I think most LDS favor those who have been born over the unborn, but yet we still place more value on unborn humans than on any other living species. Furthermore there is plenty of room to debate what sort of existence for the living is acceptable. I'm perfectly willing to live with less if necessary to ensure that more people can enjoy a better life. Sometimes I wonder if the resources society uses to keep older people ticking would be better spent helping children--yet such questions are taboo for a reason.

While ultimately we can't continue growing at our current rate forever, I don't think we'll need to do anything more drastic than mere education especially of women. Well, perhaps we'll need to add a change in the way we handle resources so that we are more efficient them. I don't think we need to chastize anyone for killing the planet by having too many kids. At most we could chastize someone for not having the means to support their own family but instead knowingly placing the burden on others due to their own irresponsibility.

We should be looking to improve the quality of life, not the quantity.

For many of us, quantity is a quality we value. Who gets to decide which values are correct? While I happen to share the value of trying not to inflict harm upon others, I also realize that most things have trade-offs. If you can only save either your mother or some unknown child, who do you save? The right answer is probably the child because that is what we as a society have decided, but the choice is still difficult and who's really to say which choice is right?

[Guest]

While ultimately we can't continue growing at our current rate forever, I don't think we'll need to do anything more drastic than mere education especially of women. Well, perhaps we'll need to add a change in the way we handle resources so that we are more efficient them. I don't think we need to chastize anyone for killing the planet by having too many kids. At most we could chastize someone for not having the means to support their own family but instead knowingly placing the burden on others due to their own irresponsibility.

Education of women? You mean that the CoJCoLDS will cease to encourage its young women to have children early and often, and instead urge them all to finish college and try to enter a professional career, thereby intentionally leading to smaller LDS families? Seriously?

You know, this thread was originally about a single pretty simple proposition:

P: There is some number N of human beings which is such that our planet's physical constraints will make it impossible for more than that number of human beings to live on our planet.

I cannot think of anybody who could find non-miraculous grounds for disputing P in the form in which it is stated here.

What we decide N is will depend on what we believe the ultimate physical constraints to be. But that there are some constraints is undeniable: thus, for instance, there is a value of N (call it Ns) that would require people to be standing shoulder to shoulder over the entire land surface of the globe. It seems very unlikely that anyone would argue that the human population could be maintained at that value. Thus there is a value of N which is too large for the earth to sustain it, and P is true.

Of course there could be argument about the maximum value of N. But a basic feature of population growth is that it tends to be exponential. That means that unless the conditions of growth change drastically, it is multiplied by the same factor in equal time intervals. Here is a series of numbers growing by 5% each step - you can see that it more than doubles in 16 steps:

1
1.05
1.10
1.16
1.22
1.28
1.34
1.41
1.48
1.55
1.63
1.71
1.80
1.89
1.98
2.08

It will double again after about 16 more steps, and so on. [Edited to add: notice that the rate of increase has doubled too: between steps 1 and 2 the increase was 0.05; from the penultimate value to the last one the increase is 0.10. That's exponentials for you ...]

That is the recipe for a graph that gets steeper and steeper as time goes past, not just higher and higher:



The ever increasing steepness of an exponential graph makes much of the argument about the precise size of the maximum sustainable population unimportant, since the time to move from one number to the next is ever more tightly compressed as the graph steepens.

But to return to the OP: you can abuse the messenger as much as you like. That does not change the fact that sooner or later we shall hit the stops. All we can argue about is exactly where those stops are located.

[_Ren]

I think population growth will naturally decrease without having to chastize people for having too many children.

Just to get my position on this clear:

I wouldn't - and haven't - chastise(d) anybody for the belief that population growth will 'naturally decrease' in benign ways. From the data I've been shown, it indeed looks like (at least on a global scale) that is what's happening.

And that's good.

What I feel perfectly comfortable 'chastising' people for - though - is the idea that the growth rate simply doesn't matter. That it could - potentially - stick on 1%, 2% - heck 3% growth... Why not? And everything will be fine because - well - it just will. It will 'all work out somehow'.
Or they accept that (in that scenario) it would need to to come down 'eventually' but - well - someone else can do it. I don't want to.

I'm sorry - that notion is just daft.

[_Some Schmo]

What I feel perfectly comfortable 'chastising' people for - though - is the idea that the growth rate simply doesn't matter. That it could - potentially - stick on 1%, 2% - heck 3% growth... Why not? And everything will be fine because - well - it just will. It will 'all work out somehow'.
Or they accept that (in that scenario) it would need to to come down 'eventually' but - well - someone else can do it. I don't want to.

I'm sorry - that notion is just daft.

I was thinking along these lines last night after reading this thread, and it occurs to me the some religious folks, under the guise of piety and selflessness, will defend the unborn's right to live, all the while ignoring just how selfish it is that we, as a generation, realize the problem (or at least, have the data to understand the problem) and leave it to the next generation to do something about it.

So yeah, right to lifers... just pump out those kids, and let them inherit the fruits of your own selfishness and intellectual dishonesty.

For many of us, quantity is a quality we value. Who gets to decide which values are correct?

The issue here is that your ignoring the problem of quantity when assessing your values. It seems you want to look at it from a microcosmic view rather than a global one. You don't seem to realize that the longer your loved ones live, the worse off it is for everyone else.

Humanity's priorities ore f***ed up. It's always "life life life" rather than "the circle of life." A new set of people can't enjoy the roller coaster if the people who just rode won't get off. There is a finite length to the roller coaster (and making it longer diminishes the quality of the ride). At some point, you can't make it any longer; there's only so much track.

[_asbestosman]

Education of women? You mean that the CoJCoLDS will cease to encourage its young women to have children early and often, and instead urge them all to finish college and try to enter a professional career, thereby intentionally leading to smaller LDS families? Seriously?

Whether they are so encouraged by the church or not, that is what is happening with the LDS women I know in my family and as friends. It seems to me that while LDS women are encouraged not to delay having children, the are also encouraged to finish school. They are also making those decisions on their own as part of the broader American culture they are a part of. When they have children it's fewer whether for financial reasons, or stress, or whatever. Seriously, I see it happening.

You know, this thread was originally about a single pretty simple proposition:

P: There is some number N of human beings which is such that our planet's physical constraints will make it impossible for more than that number of human beings to live on our planet.

This thread was originally about counter-bashing Droopy. Exhibit 1: look at the thread's title. Exhibit 2: all the comments about Droopy / Loran and who takes him seriously.

Thanks for the math lesson, but if you were paying attention you will note that I provided the original link to the videos on exponential growth. I'm fairly good with mathematics and I defy you to find a place where I denied mathematical truths or demonstrated that I don't understand exponentials. What I deny is the applicability of doomsday models to the current situation because it seems clear to me that we are putting on the breaks all by ourselves. We don't have to consciously worry about it because it is taking care of itself without war, famine, pestilence and other doomsday problems. People are simply having less children. I also think that as technology improves, we will find ways to support more people and that society will naturally adjust accordingly. Furthermore it is the poor countries, not the rich ones who are having lots of children on average.

What I feel perfectly comfortable 'chastising' people for - though - is the idea that the growth rate simply doesn't matter. That it could - potentially - stick on 1%, 2% - heck 3% growth... Why not? And everything will be fine because - well - it just will. It will 'all work out somehow'.
Or they accept that (in that scenario) it would need to to come down 'eventually' but - well - someone else can do it. I don't want to.

I'm sorry - that notion is just daft.

That's fair. Given my belief that the problem is taking care of itself, I'm not so worried about trying to correct the foolish notions--even if they're wrong things will still work out. I figure it's not worth sowing discord among my fellow LDS. While I certainly don't like the fact that many don't really understand the real implications of exponentials, I suppose others get just as frustrated with my abuse of the English language.

The issue here is that your ignoring the problem of quantity when assessing your values. It seems you want to look at it from a microcosmic view rather than a global one. You don't seem to realize that the longer your loved ones live, the worse off it is for everyone else.

Did I say I prefer to prolong life? I think I brought it up more as an example of the sort of trade-offs society makes. Personally I feel more like you about the DNR thing, but I realize that many people do not agree, and I don't think it's just for religious reasons. Who's to say we're right about it?

[_Chap]

It seems to me that while LDS women are encouraged not to delay having children, the are also encouraged to finish school.

Hmm. You see no contradiction there?

Thanks for the math lesson, but if you were paying attention you will note that I provided the original link to the videos on exponential growth. I'm fairly good with mathematics and I defy you to find a place where I denied mathematical truths or demonstrated that I don't understand exponentials.

You think my post was all about you?

What I deny is the applicability of doomsday models to the current situation because it seems clear to me that we are putting on the breaks all by ourselves. We don't have to consciously worry about it because it is taking care of itself without war, famine, pestilence and other doomsday problems. People are simply having less children. I also think that as technology improves, we will find ways to support more people and that society will naturally adjust accordingly.

It is good to hear such a calming voice. But to deal with the few worrywarts amongst us who tend to like answers about countable things that actually have some figures in them, could you kindly give us your ball-park figure for where you think the world population is going to stabilize, and tell us roughly when that is going to happen?

Since you are good at math, I know you will understand when I say that I would be satisfied with answers that include a range of uncertainty, such as:

Max population: 10 billion ± 1 billion
Date achieved: 2060 ± 20 years

You see, if you can't or won't do that, then it is a bit hard to take your reassurances seriously. That's reasonable, isn't it?

[_asbestosman]

Hmm. You see no contradiction there?

Not any more than the one given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We LDS are used to that sor tof thing.

You think my post was all about you?

It seemed to have been a response to me, so I thought it was primarily about me. Sometimes it hard to tell when you've moved from addressing one poster to speaking of things in general.

It is good to hear such a calming voice. But to deal with the few worrywarts amongst us who tend to like answers about countable things that actually have some figures in them, could you kindly give us your ball-park figure for where you think the world population is going to stabilize, and tell us roughly when that is going to happen?

Since you are good at math, I know you will understand when I say that I would be satisfied with answers that include a range of uncertainty, such as:

Max population: 10 billion ± 1 billion
Date achieved: 2060 ± 20 years

You see, if you can't or won't do that, then it is a bit hard to take your reassurances seriously. That's reasonable, isn't it?

LDSBruin discusses it at MADB: linky.
Note that if we look at how growth rates have been declining, we will eventually reach ZPG.

If you really want me to try crunghing numbers, maybe later. I'm a bit busy at the moment.

[_Chap]

Let's take a model of population growth that projects that the growth rate of population is likely to decrease in coming decades (I think asbestosman would be happy with that):



Even on that model, you get a projected population increase like this:



Looks as if by the end of this century the world population is projected to be not much below double what it was at the start of the century in 2000. So that will be OK, then? All those poor countries out there will have no trouble feeding these new mouths?

Of course we can forget about the effects of global warming on top of that population growth, because it is all just made up by a bunch of liberal atheists. World food production is certain not to be adversely affected as a result. All will be well.

By the way, these data come from a well-known source of ideologically contaminated data, the US census bureau:

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/index.html