The Decline and Fall of the EU

[doc_bean]

Obviously there is a lot of us. The question is how many more of us can there be and have a nice level of life that is sustainable and that will allow others to coexist at similar levels.

Soylent Green will solve all !

[Husar]

The solution:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

[A.Saturnus]

Surely the end of population growth would be a glorious day for the world ...

The concern is how this happens.

It seems likely that such a level will be reached, based on extrapolation of data of current western countries. Or simply because we will run out of food. But please don't make in this into pseudo-science...

Turning all energie in the universe into humans would reduce enthropy.
Since the universe is finite, an infinite growth is obviously impossible. More relevant of course are the limits of growth here on earth. The ecosystem will at some point cease to support the amount of human life. It is however naive to think that reaching the maximum will necessarily be a unexciting event. Imagine the following example: more and more people enter a boat. At some point the weight of the people will become to much for the boat.
There are two ways that can end:
- enough people get off the boat again
- the boat sinks

Which is more likely to happen?

[doc_bean]

Turning all energie in the universe into humans would reduce enthropy.
Since the universe is finite, an infinite growth is obviously impossible. More relevant of course are the limits of growth here on earth. The ecosystem will at some point cease to support the amount of human life. It is however naive to think that reaching the maximum will necessarily be a unexciting event. Imagine the following example: more and more people enter a boat. At some point the weight of the people will become to much for the boat.
There are two ways that can end:
- enough people get off the boat again
- the boat sinks

Which is more likely to happen?

What always happens, people kill eachother and the survivers carry on. Do the evolution !

It's very unlikely that we will make earth completely inhabitable without a major nuclear war or such event, there will always be places were humans can live, and the population will adjust itself to the circumstances. If we have more people than we can support the 'boat' will unlikely sink, we'll just fight a few wars until we've reached an acceptable level of population again.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that grim, it might be that the growth stops on its own, it has in the west anyway. I always find the overpopulation panic way overhyped. Africa's agricultural sector suffers because the EU exports to there, the EU and the US have strict trade limits when it comes to agricultural products to protect their own markets. There is enough food available for *a lot* more people. Unless global warming suddenly destroys a big percentage of useable soil, but like one of my professors once said "they can't predict the weather a day in advance, you expect me to believe what they predict for over 50 years ?"


Besides, even if overpopulation is a problem, it's mostly an Asian-African one, no need for us to really worry about it, except for protecting and maintaining our agricultural potential. (Or do you want to interfere in the countries that have a population problem ?)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I suppose this is the sort of stuff that inspires Parry:

PARIS, France (AP) -- A court on Wednesday convicted 25 people for their roles in preparing an attack in France in support of Islamic fighters in Chechnya.

All but one defendant had been accused of helping Islamic fighters in Chechnya in what prosecutors said underscored the "globalization of the jihad movement."

The network was dismantled in two waves, the first in December 2002 as investigators stormed two houses in the Paris suburb of La Courneuve and the nearby town of Romainville. They found gas canisters, fuses, chemicals and a suit to protect against chemical attacks.

Prosecutor Anne Kostomaroff, profiling the network, put the origins of the group in Chlef, Algeria, in 1999, where eight members had refused an Algerian government amnesty plan for Islamic insurgents in the North African country. Various members then traveled to Spain, France, Italy and the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, while a core group formed in the Paris region in late 2000 to create a support ring for Islamic militants in the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya.

However, the Benchellali family has long been established in Lyon. Imam Benchellali is known to have occasionally used his makeshift mosque on the ground floor of a high-rise building to collect funds for Islamic fighters in Chechnya.

The usual stuff. Imams preaching hatred and terror in western mosques, established immigrants and fresh recruits plotting chemical attacks, instable Islamic regimes at the root of it all.

French terror plot

[A.Saturnus]

It's very unlikely that we will make earth completely inhabitable without a major nuclear war or such event, there will always be places were humans can live, and the population will adjust itself to the circumstances. If we have more people than we can support the 'boat' will unlikely sink, we'll just fight a few wars until we've reached an acceptable level of population again.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that grim, it might be that the growth stops on its own, it has in the west anyway. I always find the overpopulation panic way overhyped. Africa's agricultural sector suffers because the EU exports to there, the EU and the US have strict trade limits when it comes to agricultural products to protect their own markets. There is enough food available for *a lot* more people. Unless global warming suddenly destroys a big percentage of useable soil, but like one of my professors once said "they can't predict the weather a day in advance, you expect me to believe what they predict for over 50 years ?"

Actually, it's easier to predict what will happen over 50 years than over a few days. The weather of tomorrow is bound to random variance, but over 50 years, the variance is equaled out.
Yes, you're right. We won't make earth completely inhabitable. The only way the human race wipes itself out is via WMDs (and even that wouldn't be easy). But I didn't mean to say it's the end of the world. You say we will fight "a few wars", but no war ever killed a significant percentage of the earth's population. Even all wars rolled into one probably won't compare to this event. Whether it will be an epic war, a shortage of food or a shift in the ecosystem (or all together), if we don't stop the exponantial growth of population, it will stop by itself, in a crash. You're of course right that it will hit Africa and Asia more than us but
1)that doesn't make it ok
2)it may be bad enough for us

My point is that it doesn't matter how many food resources we have. The amount only determines when it happens, not whether.

[rory_20_uk]

The West has had a population explosion, and we are now static / falling. With enough time this may happen in other areas of the world as well. Then the amount of food is important, as whether the upper limit can be buffered or not. If it can there is a chance that things could rise, level out then gradually fall. If there is not enough food then things will be far more... unpleasant.

[doc_bean]

Actually, it's easier to predict what will happen over 50 years than over a few days. The weather of tomorrow is bound to random variance, but over 50 years, the variance is equaled out.

I know, I just love the quote.

Yes, you're right. We won't make earth completely inhabitable. The only way the human race wipes itself out is via WMDs (and even that wouldn't be easy). But I didn't mean to say it's the end of the world. You say we will fight "a few wars", but no war ever killed a significant percentage of the earth's population. Even all wars rolled into one probably won't compare to this event. Whether it will be an epic war, a shortage of food or a shift in the ecosystem (or all together), if we don't stop the exponantial growth of population, it will stop by itself, in a crash. You're of course right that it will hit Africa and Asia more than us but
1)that doesn't make it ok
2)it may be bad enough for us

Regardless, i don't see how we can stop it then.

My point is that it doesn't matter how many food resources we have. The amount only determines when it happens, not whether.

That it will happen seems reasonable considering biology (breed ! breed !). But when is important, if population growth in asia slows down (which seems likely) it's a long way off. According to a lot of people (economists and such) a stable, high level of population of about 10 billion can and will be achieved, and maintained for a long time (unless we bring in the WMDs, or a comet hits, or something like that).

[A.Saturnus]

The West has had a population explosion, and we are now static / falling. With enough time this may happen in other areas of the world as well. Then the amount of food is important, as whether the upper limit can be buffered or not. If it can there is a chance that things could rise, level out then gradually fall. If there is not enough food then things will be far more... unpleasant.

The situations of Europe back then and Africa/Asia now are difficult to compare. Besides, I don't think the growth in Europe was ever as steep as it is now in some parts of Africa.
Food is an important factor in the equation, but not the only one. If we had unlimited food - we still might get a crash.

That it will happen seems reasonable considering biology (breed ! breed !). But when is important, if population growth in asia slows down (which seems likely) it's a long way off. According to a lot of people (economists and such) a stable, high level of population of about 10 billion can and will be achieved, and maintained for a long time (unless we bring in the WMDs, or a comet hits, or something like that).

China has employed severe measures to reduce growth, with limited effect. And I don't think a population of 10 billions will become stable all by itself. We have now 6 billion, and it's far from stable. Why should it suddenly become stable?
You can see the ecosystem as a dynamic system. The current socio-cultural situation in many parts of the world generates a high amplification. Food shortage, wars, disease and other constraints make a damping factor of the system. A stable maximum or slow turning is achieved if the damping factor is large enough relative to the amplification. If not, it happens as I said, the growth will rapidly hit a maximum and then become hugely negative.

Regardless, i don't see how we can stop it then.

There are two options: increase the damping factor or reduce the amplification. Reducing the amplification would mean to change the socio-cultural structure of many societies. At the moment, means of population control are the best help the West could offer the third world. Somehow we have to bring them to use it.

[doc_bean]

China has employed severe measures to reduce growth, with limited effect. And I don't think a population of 10 billions will become stable all by itself. We have now 6 billion, and it's far from stable. Why should it suddenly become stable?
You can see the ecosystem as a dynamic system. The current socio-cultural situation in many parts of the world generates a high amplification. Food shortage, wars, disease and other constraints make a damping factor of the system. A stable maximum or slow turning is achieved if the damping factor is large enough relative to the amplification. If not, it happens as I said, the growth will rapidly hit a maximum and then become hugely negative.

There are more Irish Americans than there are Irish. There are more Hispanics than Spanish. People adapt to their environment, if there are a lot of excess resources available than people breed like rabbits, if there aren't, growth usually slows down until a stable popualtion is reached. humans aren't all that different from other animals, we consume resources as much as we can in order to reproduce. If resources are limited than usually less offspring are produced but given relatively plenty of resources so they have a good chance of surviving and prodcuing offspring of their own.

(Note: spawning lots of offspring with little chance of survival also seems liek a human reproduction tactic, but for the most part only used in unusual circumstances, mostly when not enough resources are available to even raise one child to relative wealth/status, see Africa, and to a lesser extent, chavs)

There are two options: increase the damping factor or reduce the amplification. Reducing the amplification would mean to change the socio-cultural structure of many societies. At the moment, means of population control are the best help the West could offer the third world. Somehow we have to bring them to use it.

That would also mean a change of socio-cultural structure. face it, Africa is pretty much a lost cause these days.

[rory_20_uk]

So, in many places in Africa employing a long term view would be best. As such I feel that a "clean sheet" approach would be the most workable, as clearly the stopgap measures we are currently using suffer from corruption sapping the money whereas the problems get worse by the year.

And after the land has recovered in a few hundred years time, new people can be let into the areas that have been "swept and cleaned".

No omlette was made without the odd egg being broken.

[doc_bean]

So, in many places in Africa employing a long term view would be best. As such I feel that a "clean sheet" approach would be the most workable, as clearly the stopgap measures we are currently using suffer from corruption sapping the money whereas the problems get worse by the year.

And after the land has recovered in a few hundred years time, new people can be let into the areas that have been "swept and cleaned".

No omlette was made without the odd egg being broken.

Or, you know, we could:

-severely limit arms trading
-allow African nations some protectionism (especially when considering agricultural products)
-stop giving corrupt governments so much money
-support organization which actually try to help the people
-stop the anti-condom propaganda
-stop exploitation of their natural resources by western companies (blood diamonds anyone)
-give proper information about aids

etc.

There are a lot of things that could be done to make Africa a better place, I'm just saying you can't expect any miracles to happen, it won't be changed easily, and certainly not quickly.

[rory_20_uk]

Or, you know, we could:

-severely limit arms trading
-allow African nations some protectionism (especially when considering agricultural products)
-stop giving corrupt governments so much money
-support organization which actually try to help the people
-stop the anti-condom propaganda
-stop exploitation of their natural resources by western companies (blood diamonds anyone)
-give proper information about aids

Arms trading - limit how? E.g. China wants to sell arms. How do we stop them?
Protectionism - why just Africa? Many other countries could benefit.
Corrupt governments and money - good theory, but in practice doesn't this just hurt those at the bottom?
Exploitation of natural resources - that's how India and China are doing so well. And Brazil, and many others. How do these countries use their own resources when we say they're bieng exploited?
AIDS / condom propaganda - useful of course.

As usual lovely ideals, but as I said they just simply won't work as things are. The West plays nice, then China, Russia and possibly India take up the slack with glee. Like the Slave Trade, there are groups that want guns. They will get them one way or the other. They get things to trade for the weapons. Africa tends to be very macho. The biggest get to the top. How can we suddenly tell them otherwise? We go in and fight the lot of them? Hardly useful.

[doc_bean]

As usual lovely ideals, but as I said they just simply won't work as things are.

Indeed, that's why I'm saying Africa is pretty much a hopeless cause right now, the few things that can be done to make things better aren't likely to actually be done, since it's not in the current bast interest of the rest of the world.

[rory_20_uk]

Hence why removing humans in the long term give the possibility of a successful Africa.

Sometimes there is not a road to recovery that includes humans. Without the constant drain there is a chance.

[Banquo's Ghost]

To facilitate further debate on whether populations of humans can regulate themselves effectively, there is the cautionary tale of Rapa Nui. There are many sources, but this is quite accessible:

The Catastrophe of Rapa Nui.

The thought provoking question at the end is one that has often occupied my mind when I first read about this disaster:

What was in the mind of the man who cut down the very last tree?

[The Black Ship]

What was in the mind of the man who cut down the very last tree?

Probably something like: "Oh well, we're screwed anyways...least those damned flatheads didn't get it!"

[_Martyr_]

Yeah, it wasnt the LAST tree that really mattered that much, it was a non renewable resource because the rats prevented anything from growing... AT that stage they were so screwed anyway that they probably simply needed the tree to cook food. Very interesting story. I had heard it before, but that went into a lot of detail. Kind of scary though.

[doc_bean]

Hence why removing humans in the long term give the possibility of a successful Africa.

Sometimes there is not a road to recovery that includes humans. Without the constant drain there is a chance.

O, you were being serious...

[rory_20_uk]

I agree, a further 300 years of starvation, anarchy and death is a much better way to go...

[A.Saturnus]

There are more Irish Americans than there are Irish. There are more Hispanics than Spanish. People adapt to their environment, if there are a lot of excess resources available than people breed like rabbits, if there aren't, growth usually slows down until a stable popualtion is reached. humans aren't all that different from other animals, we consume resources as much as we can in order to reproduce. If resources are limited than usually less offspring are produced but given relatively plenty of resources so they have a good chance of surviving and prodcuing offspring of their own.

Steep population peaks are common to many species. Yes, the species as a whole will adapt. Many many individuals will not have the time or chance for that.

(Note: spawning lots of offspring with little chance of survival also seems liek a human reproduction tactic, but for the most part only used in unusual circumstances, mostly when not enough resources are available to even raise one child to relative wealth/status, see Africa, and to a lesser extent, chavs)

Excess breeding is usually used by animals that have low control over their environment.