Are people living too long?

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
We are growing our population at a way higher rate now than nature had intended us to be having to fit in with the natural environment of our world. We may actually be able to engineer more food to feed us, but that isn't universally available, and right now there's a bigger problem with just access to water in many parts of the world, especially with problems associated with climate change melting off glaciers that are a source for many water supplies people depend on not only for their own consumption but for raising food, and for the wild life around them. More people also means more resource consumption of not just food resources and more carbon, etc. that contributes to climate change damage.

It is often noted that if we can increase access to education especially to women (as well as some degree of reasonable wealth to the poor in so many parts of the world), that our population growth that is growing a lot in these areas would be reduced quite a bit. And those people would live longer and be more valuable parts of society too.

Umm where in the world is a glacier a source for water supplies? Never heard of that. We do need to straight up abandon places where water supplies have to drawn from far away sources like Los Vegas and Southern California. S. Cali could potentially build the facilities to take salt out of ocean water and use it. . . since the water system rotates water back to oceans it shouldn't be a concern that they will dry up the Pacific. But Vegas has to go it was a mistake from the start.

In terms of resources. . . it's a simple fact that we have to find ways to use renewable resources. Lowering population doesn't do anything for that.

Over-population is one of the world's most overrated problems quite honestly. And much like resources, population tends to have a distribution problem. While some countries like China and India are trying to reduce their populations, other countries like I believe Sweden and Norway are trying to push their people to have more children as their population is falling because most people are not having children.

It seems be an issue with well off nations that the people tend to get more materialistic and choose to forgo children.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,104
113
In terms of resources. . . it's a simple fact that we have to find ways to use renewable resources. Lowering population doesn't do anything for that.

Can you explain the logic of this point please? We need to use more renewables because non renewables are finite. Less people means those finite resources last longer and does reduce the need to switch to renewable. Are you basing your position on this topic on real theory I might examine or is this influenced by a biblical worldview?
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
Can you explain the logic of this point please? We need to use more renewables because non renewables are finite. Less people means those finite resources last longer and does reduce the need to switch to renewable. Are you basing your position on this topic on real theory I might examine or is this influenced by a biblical worldview?

Honestly I don't see the extraction of resources slowing just because there are less people. Reducing the number of people tends to make all the people wealthier. . . While that's great in terms of economic practice, in terms of resources it means that everyone just consumes more resources per person.

Say you have 7 billion people now and half that population gets to use cars and the other half is too poor to have a car. So 3.5 billion people use cars and use oil to power those cars.

Cut the population in half to 3.5 billion people. . . that makes everyone wealthier. (See the middle ages after the plague. This lead to the Renaissance.). But said wealth means that instead of 50% of the world's population using cars, 100% of the world's population uses cars. In the end 3.5 billion people are using cars because now all of them have the money to do so.

You arn't going to change how fast humans extract and use the earth's resources through lower populations.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,104
113
Honestly I don't see the extraction of resources slowing just because there are less people. Reducing the number of people tends to make all the people wealthier. . . While that's great in terms of economic practice, in terms of resources it means that everyone just consumes more resources per person.

Say you have 7 billion people now and half that population gets to use cars and the other half is too poor to have a car. So 3.5 billion people use cars and use oil to power those cars.

Cut the population in half to 3.5 billion people. . . that makes everyone wealthier. (See the middle ages after the plague. This lead to the Renaissance.). But said wealth means that instead of 50% of the world's population using cars, 100% of the world's population uses cars. In the end 3.5 billion people are using cars because now all of them have the money to do so.

You arn't going to change how fast humans extract and use the earth's resources through lower populations.
This sounds suspect to my mind. Is this personal conjecture or is this based on some study?
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
This sounds suspect to my mind. Is this personal conjecture or is this based on some study?

Personal conjecture, but I'm pretty sure given the topic pretty much anything is personal conjecture.

It's not like you can provide solid proof from history that resources are drawn less when population drops (from a higher level). It's personal conjecture that less people would equal less resource usage.

My personal conjecture is that sounds reasonable but is actually false.
 
Nov 28, 2010
78,590
31,783
113
Maryland
That is exactly what's driving our population growth. Freaking vaccines. . . Not causing autism, but making our population grow.

For the record I'm not all that worried about population growth. We have more then enough food to feed everyone and could feed a lot more people in fact. It's the fact it's not being well distributed and certain places lack the internal security to make this possible.

That's what we need to work on. . . don't have a problem with pre-conception birth control options but it's not a problem of people having too many kids or population itself.
Sounds like a call for sensible socialism - to organize the economy and food production/distribution, in particular, to do a better job of delivering benefits to all rather than profits to a few.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,104
113
Personal conjecture, but I'm pretty sure given the topic pretty much anything is personal conjecture.

It's not like you can provide solid proof from history that resources are drawn less when population drops (from a higher level). It's personal conjecture that less people would equal less resource usage.

My personal conjecture is that sounds reasonable but is actually false.
Ok in that case I have a couple thoughts for consideration. First we aren't actually talking about or likely to achieve negative population growth. We were realistically talking about slowing growth. So this idea that there are going to be free resources laying about like they were for plague survivors seems off the mark.

Given that, the reasonable and logical position that more people use more resources ought to hold sway until some sort of evidence to the contrary becomes evident.

Finally a little thought about quality of life should be part of our calculus. If reducing population does make us all rich, that's worthwhile to consider especially if we get there simply by natural attrition. And if more population necessities onerous regulations to efficiently use resources we should ask what is the point? Is there any good reason for wanting a higher population other than the freedom to breed?
 

Lone Clone

HR King
May 29, 2001
110,882
20,878
113
People have always lived this long. The difference is almost everybody today makes it into adulthood whereas 100 years ago, half of your kids died young.

On the flip side, I see plenty of 50 and 60 year olds in the obits every day.
This is incorrect, at least I think the way you meant it is incorrect.

Assuming a 30-year-old has made it into adulthood, there is a huge difference in longevity now.

100 years ago, a 30-year-old white man could expect to live to age 68. Today a 30-year-old white man can expect to live to age 82.

You may not consider that significant. As a 69-year-old, I do.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
Ok in that case I have a couple thoughts for consideration. First we aren't actually talking about or likely to achieve negative population growth. We were realistically talking about slowing growth. So this idea that there are going to be free resources laying about like they were for plague survivors seems off the mark.

Given that, the reasonable and logical position that more people use more resources ought to hold sway until some sort of evidence to the contrary becomes evident.

Finally a little thought about quality of life should be part of our calculus. If reducing population does make us all rich, that's worthwhile to consider especially if we get there simply by natural attrition. And if more population necessities onerous regulations to efficiently use resources we should ask what is the point? Is there any good reason for wanting a higher population other than the freedom to breed?

I happen to think that freedom to breed is a pretty important freedom.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
Sounds like a call for sensible socialism - to organize the economy and food production/distribution, in particular, to do a better job of delivering benefits to all rather than profits to a few.

I don't believe in socialism as in collective or government ownership of the means of production.

But I do believe that a market economy should be designed in a way that provides benefits for the common good. The government should do what it can to encourage and if necessary force companies to pay their employees well. It should also do what it can to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

The problems at home are more easily solved if people agree on the common good. . . however when I consider the problems abroad they are not so easily solved. We can not just walk into other nations and take power just because we feel we know what is best for them. Nor can mere words put down those who would seek to take power and hurt others through force of arms.
 

naturalmwa

HR King
Feb 4, 2004
101,988
82,104
113
I happen to think that freedom to breed is a pretty important freedom.
We aren't likely to see eye to eye here. But I would suggest the greatest threat to this freedom is over use. By advocating for less breeding, the freedom to do it increases as the costs associated with it are less for the rest of us.
 

SpartanHawk

HR Legend
Sep 7, 2001
14,268
258
83
Umm where in the world is a glacier a source for water supplies? Never heard of that. We do need to straight up abandon places where water supplies have to drawn from far away sources like Los Vegas and Southern California. S. Cali could potentially build the facilities to take salt out of ocean water and use it. . . since the water system rotates water back to oceans it shouldn't be a concern that they will dry up the Pacific. But Vegas has to go it was a mistake from the start.

Well, it is not just places that are "far away" from glaciers. Read here, how global warming has pretty much melted off the glaciers in Bolivia that keeps the water reservoirs filled that they depend on for water. And this is happening due to other countries not trying to bring down carbon emissions which screws them, just like many in the Pacific are screwed when water levels increase there and flood the lands of their islands too. Read here how Bolivia is having to deal with this now. What does a country like Bolivia do that depends on the natural cycles of glaciers providing most of their water supplies that they've relied on for most of time.

Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier Melts to Nothing 6 Years Early

In terms of resources. . . it's a simple fact that we have to find ways to use renewable resources. Lowering population doesn't do anything for that.

Over-population is one of the world's most overrated problems quite honestly. And much like resources, population tends to have a distribution problem. While some countries like China and India are trying to reduce their populations, other countries like I believe Sweden and Norway are trying to push their people to have more children as their population is falling because most people are not having children.

It seems be an issue with well off nations that the people tend to get more materialistic and choose to forgo children.

Sweden and Norway may have some noise statistics in having a few more kids than other developed countries, but that really isn't where the growth is happening. As I noted, the biggest areas of overpopulation are areas where you have an uneducated populace and a populace that is used to having larger than average sized family because they've traditionally also have a larger infant mortality rate in those areas, and have needed to have their kids take care of their elders as they get older without social safety nets provided by government for the elderly in many of those places. Read here and note the third and last paragraphs here on this subject...

Causes of Overpopulation

If we want a world where we aren't trying to fight overpopulation by finding some way to kill off people if we have too many or have them die earlier to keep them from filling up the world, the best way to do that is to prevent too many births. The developed world mostly has cut back over the years, but educating the third world to creep out of their traditional high birth rates would be a good way to substantially lower the birth rate that fixes the problem without having to try to kill off people earlier in one fashion or another.

Famine is a Feminist issue - to feed the world, start by teaching girls to read

I think is the best way to deal with the problems of overpopulation and the environmental problems these articles mention which will result if we don't deal with them, and in a way hopefully to build a better world for everyone that is still here later.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
Well, it is not just places that are "far away" from glaciers. Read here, how global warming has pretty much melted off the glaciers in Bolivia that keeps the water reservoirs filled that they depend on for water. And this is happening due to other countries not trying to bring down carbon emissions which screws them, just like many in the Pacific are screwed when water levels increase there and flood the lands of their islands too. Read here how Bolivia is having to deal with this now. What does a country like Bolivia do that depends on the natural cycles of glaciers providing most of their water supplies that they've relied on for most of time.

Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier Melts to Nothing 6 Years Early



Sweden and Norway may have some noise statistics in having a few more kids than other developed countries, but that really isn't where the growth is happening. As I noted, the biggest areas of overpopulation are areas where you have an uneducated populace and a populace that is used to having larger than average sized family because they've traditionally also have a larger infant mortality rate in those areas, and have needed to have their kids take care of their elders as they get older without social safety nets provided by government for the elderly in many of those places. Read here and note the third and last paragraphs here on this subject...

Causes of Overpopulation

If we want a world where we aren't trying to fight overpopulation by finding some way to kill off people if we have too many or have them die earlier to keep them from filling up the world, the best way to do that is to prevent too many births. The developed world mostly has cut back over the years, but educating the third world to creep out of their traditional high birth rates would be a good way to substantially lower the birth rate that fixes the problem without having to try to kill off people earlier in one fashion or another.

Famine is a Feminist issue - to feed the world, start by teaching girls to read

I think is the best way to deal with the problems of overpopulation and the environmental problems these articles mention which will result if we don't deal with them, and in a way hopefully to build a better world for everyone that is still here later.

Explain something to me. . . if they relied on glacial melt for their water, where they not already tapping into a resource that they knew was limited? And wasn't said glacial melt caused by Global warming anyways and they where taking advantage of it?

I'm not following how everything was fine there til global warming took their glacier away. Because if they where tapping into the glacier for water then they where depending on the same global warming to melt the glacier to supply them with that water.

No problem with providing pre-conception birth control options again as long as people who are opposed to it don't have to pay for it.

However stability and then wealth in the regions are what is going to help with the problem. But if those are introduced, especially stability then it will not be.
 

SpartanHawk

HR Legend
Sep 7, 2001
14,268
258
83
Explain something to me. . . if they relied on glacial melt for their water, where they not already tapping into a resource that they knew was limited? And wasn't said glacial melt caused by Global warming anyways and they where taking advantage of it?

I'm not following how everything was fine there til global warming took their glacier away. Because if they where tapping into the glacier for water then they where depending on the same global warming to melt the glacier to supply them with that water.

No problem with providing pre-conception birth control options again as long as people who are opposed to it don't have to pay for it.

However stability and then wealth in the regions are what is going to help with the problem. But if those are introduced, especially stability then it will not be.

Up until global warming, most glaciers have ALWAYS BEEN THERE. Most people or other life living there don't know that it was "limited" as a resource, because before global warming it WASN'T a limited resource within a millenia. It is seasonal melting and then refreezing of glaciers during winter months that have it being a resource that has lasted a long time before excessive warming melted these resources off. Bolivia is a landlocked country too, so there's not a lot of choices as far as sources of water go. Those living there probably feel, and justifiably so, that the water resources they and centuries of generations before them have depended on for water should still be around. The same goes for those living on islands that are being flooded in to non-existence by rising seawater. They have nowhere else to go, and climate change is forcing them in to an untenable situation. Climate change that is largely caused by excessive human activity largely triggered by overpopulation now.

As I noted before, it isn't necessarily tied to increased birth control options, but educating those in third world countries and decreasing their poverty, so that they don't feel they need to reproduce so much to survive. That may mean that they have less motivation to even have sex, let alone to have birth control while they do it, since through more education and raising their ability to survive on what they earn, makes them less interested in reproducing voluntarily, whether that is with birth control or just trying less to conceive kids they view as "economic security" as they do now with high infant mortality rates and low income to survive on.

Also, if some people don't want to be taxed on providing increased access to birth control, as they believe more in those people having sex having more kids, and therefore in favor of increasing our world population as a result. Some of us have religious feelings against overpopulation of our planet too, and perhaps feel we shouldn't be taxed more for the added costs of more people that might otherwise not be there with birth control, and those that prioritize not having birth control available should pay extra for that. So taxation probably balances out in these instances.

I do believe that the best way to deal with this is to try and find some civil means of having those that have a lot of kids to have more incentive to reduce that birth rate. How we do that is something we should work out our differences over time. But getting to that solution will help solve a lot of our problems.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
45,673
37,024
113
39
Up until global warming, most glaciers have ALWAYS BEEN THERE. Most people or other life living there don't know that it was "limited" as a resource, because before global warming it WASN'T a limited resource within a millenia. It is seasonal melting and then refreezing of glaciers during winter months that have it being a resource that has lasted a long time before excessive warming melted these resources off. Bolivia is a landlocked country too, so there's not a lot of choices as far as sources of water go. Those living there probably feel, and justifiably so, that the water resources they and centuries of generations before them have depended on for water should still be around. The same goes for those living on islands that are being flooded in to non-existence by rising seawater. They have nowhere else to go, and climate change is forcing them in to an untenable situation. Climate change that is largely caused by excessive human activity largely triggered by overpopulation now.

As I noted before, it isn't necessarily tied to increased birth control options, but educating those in third world countries and decreasing their poverty, so that they don't feel they need to reproduce so much to survive. That may mean that they have less motivation to even have sex, let alone to have birth control while they do it, since through more education and raising their ability to survive on what they earn, makes them less interested in reproducing voluntarily, whether that is with birth control or just trying less to conceive kids they view as "economic security" as they do now with high infant mortality rates and low income to survive on.

Also, if some people don't want to be taxed on providing increased access to birth control, as they believe more in those people having sex having more kids, and therefore in favor of increasing our world population as a result. Some of us have religious feelings against overpopulation of our planet too, and perhaps feel we shouldn't be taxed more for the added costs of more people that might otherwise not be there with birth control, and those that prioritize not having birth control available should pay extra for that. So taxation probably balances out in these instances.

I do believe that the best way to deal with this is to try and find some civil means of having those that have a lot of kids to have more incentive to reduce that birth rate. How we do that is something we should work out our differences over time. But getting to that solution will help solve a lot of our problems.

The fact that they thought it would always be there does not change the fact that climate change or no the glacier was ultimately a limited resource. Some ice melts, you use the water and if the water doesn't end up back up there when you are done with it then it goes away.
 

SpartanHawk

HR Legend
Sep 7, 2001
14,268
258
83
The fact that they thought it would always be there does not change the fact that climate change or no the glacier was ultimately a limited resource. Some ice melts, you use the water and if the water doesn't end up back up there when you are done with it then it goes away.

Umm no. Winter comes, the weather gets cold, more rain falls on the glacier, and the glacier gets back a lot of the ice that melted off in the summer months. That was NORMAL seasonal cycles that allowed glaciers to stay in the various places (and the polar ice caps for that matter) for many centuries or millenia before we started pushing the limits on climate change.

Glaciers used to NOT be a "limited resource". Just as the polar ice caps USED to not be a "limited resource". The way we are going, life on earth is becoming a "limited resource". Do we want it to stay that way with the way we've change the climate? Or do we want to restore the balance of nature and the ecosphere the way it used to be that didn't get destroyed by our actions.
 

Rustys Dad

HR Heisman
Jun 19, 2015
7,076
10,264
113
Des Moines
Geez, I don't want to gas or euthanize anybody. Not my Dad, not yours, not some crusty old fart in Topeka.

I;m just saying that we have gone beyond what nature intended on planet Earth. The brontosauruses and the triceratops were here long ago and thrived, the saber-toothed tiger later. All were animals who lived and died and the earth kept going.

Primates got smarter and here we are, messing up the earth's natural pattern. Credit our brains for wiping out species, polluting the oceans, and yes we live longer than we are supposed to. A dubious honor for the animal that is screwing up the earth. We have gone too far and away from nature, and I think that will be our downfall.
I get what you are saying. I think the thing is as WE get older WE think we aren't as old as we are and we want to keep living. I am all about "quality of life." Meaning, if I have to be propped up in a wheelchair in the corner of a nursing home with funk in my drawers ... then that is not a good "quality of life."

My father recently turned 77 and for the most part he has been blessed with being healthy as a horse. No matter how we slice and dice it ... our time here is very short and it's a good reminder to make the most of every day.
 

Latest posts