Keep reproducing folks, because you can never have too many people

This came out of a fascinating Chris Martenson (& two others) article at: http://moneymappress.com/pro/Pyramid0712MMR.php?code=WPYRN704&n=PYRAMIDMMR49EADMMP

and then click your HOME internet page, as if to leave this url, and then it'll give you the article (or watch the video if you want)

 

You can never have too many people...its only a matter of infrastructure they say!


By the way, an interesting fact now that the Olympics are on: Did you know that Yao Ming is one of the only Chinese people who has special permission from the Chinese government to have 5 children?

 

It's unlikely Julia Gillard will reproduce, perhaps that's why she has no qualms in taxing the gas we exhale.

It's ironic that PM investors desire less government idiocy, yet there are some that might also desire more government involvement in family planning.

 

Population will naturally adjust to meet the available resources. Always has always will. Personally I'm hoping the economics of harvesting resources from space will become economic (preferably through productivity rather than absence), then we can begin colonising the universe. The ultimate immortal gene will only exist if it can get out of this solar system.

 

By naturally, do you mean man made legislation that, for example, China has implemented?

We are artificially keeping people alive longer and longer, fighting 'nature', and this will continue in the future. I just don't see what you mean by 'naturally'?

 

Chinas population will begin to decline as the first to live under the one child policy begin to die. India will overtake them very quickly. The world simply doesn't have enough resources to support such a human biomass of a growing ChIndia alone. When that comes to fruition, mass famine will cull humans off, if the wars that seek to prevent the famine don't.

 

Quite simple. Like any animal/plant once you run out of resources population growth will naturally flatline or fall. Typically through starvation or conflict but lots of subtle nuances and variations. [Edit: Forced entry into convents/monasteries - albeit generally a small percentage of the population - has been a popular non-violent route for dealing with excess kids across many countries.]

As seen in nearly every single country over the past few decades, children per woman has been falling (with some countries naturally going below replacement rates). At the same time we have reduced mortality rates significantly resulting in a global population that is still growing (but will not continue exponentially for the next 30 years like Chris Martenson fears). A new equilibrium will be reached with the possibility that - if the below replacement fertility rates we have seen continue - we may even see a declining global population after 2050.

In my opinion, starvation fears are waaaay too overblown. There is a MASSIVE amount of arable land that could be brought into agriculture. The biggest issue is that much of this land will be less reliable which means increased volatility of production. Volatility can easily be managed but typically through farmers being able to access large balance sheets. Can add lots more but won't in a short blog.

 

It looks like a bubble to me. I'm selling all my slaves and I'll pick them up again for next to nothing after the crash.

 

Is it because we are breeding like rabbits or because we are not dying like flies?? The difference is humongous and catastrophic... demographic winter

 

I don't mean starvation is overblown, I mean the fear that the world's agriculture is not going to be able to keep up with population growth is overblown (another "to the moon" story that is doing the rounds). The problem is not our ability to produce enough food for a growing population (even one twice the size as current) the free market can easily see to that. Any shortage that the non-basic poverty-stricken parts of the world may see in the future will be more than likely due to Govt interference in the food market in anticipation of the "coming crisis" )or a knee-jerk response to an event) and that they must be seen to be doing something.

I will state it quite clearly ANY price control policy that governments attempt to put into place to prevent "shortages" will end up creating actual and bigger shortages. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this is one of the typical response by Government when they fear that a price is going "too high".

To be clear, I am not saying that somewhere people are not starving at the moment (which is horrible and I do what I think is rational to help where my meagre resources can). However this is happening for lots of reasons other than there being enough food production. Nor am I saying that such situations will not occur in the future. I am saying that there is no problem/constraint in our ability to produce enough food. This is a significant difference to the "to tha moon" purveyors.

It is pertinent to note that the basic and natural existence of humans is the same as any animal - namely, abject poverty where one needs to constantly scratch the dirt with their broken fingernails or gather grubs, bark, berries etc to survive day to day. Anything beyond this is due to human ingenuity and systems of structuring society that benefit the people within that society. Almost everything that we in Australia currently take for granted is due to a structuring of the global society that is significantly different to that of the pre-1600's (principally individual liberty, individual property rights, equality before a law and freedom of thought). [This last sentence is clearly grossly over-simplified in a variety of ways, but just trying to get a broad point across. We are not monkeys because we live like monkeys. We are not 12th-century peasants because we are "so much smarter" than 12th century peasants.]

 

Taking a range of UN scenarios:

Low = not breeding like rabbits (demographic winter).
High = Breeding like rabbits while not dying (not generally believed by most demographers as far as I am aware since - given a free choice, most women apparently don't want 7 babies - particularly when number 2,3,4 and 6 don't die before age 10)
Medium = low fertility countries return to "replacement rate" which, genetically, is almost guaranteed to happen at some stage but whether this century or in 2500, who knows?

 

Its a shame that as intelligent, evolved human beings we probably will not be better to avoid this inevitable 'natural' adjustment (billions of people dying). Unfortunately adhering to religious and cultural dogma is the number 1 priority. Oh and corporate greed too.

 

How is not dying like flies "adhering to religious and cultural dogma is the number 1 priority"

 

Maybe I wasn't clear.

All I am saying is that religion and culture generally support population growth and reproduction- so does corporate greed- too much of this growth may be the death of us.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I know it is a sensitive topic.

 

No worries I was just making sure that the issue we face here is a "not dying issue" not a "we have heaps of babies issue". This issue can only be pushed so far due to limitations of the human body and will lead to a crash no matter how much resources are available

 

hotel46: Your points highlight how we need to get rid of the fraudulent banking system and coercive socialistic governments if markets are going to be able to work and do what they do best - increase supply of whatever people want/need to make all participants significantly better off. When they are allowed to work we don't have anything to fear.

I would say however, that it is good for a farmer to be able to deal with natural climate variability. Irrigation and being able to switch freely between alternative products (i.e. rice, wheat, sheep etc) is a great mechanism within the boundaries of a single property (as is good cash management through time). Setting up a string of properties across different climatic zones and moving cattle/cropping between them as necessary (aka Sidney Kidman) is another. A corporation is simply the best way of doing the latter and is not a bad thing. Please do not demonise them. They are generally made up of average people who have simply pooled their resources to obtain something better than they could do by themselves. [However, you should totally demonise parasitic corporations that only exist because of immoral government regulations or crony subsidies - e.g. most of the current banking system.]

...and, yes

Hopefully we all aid this "fight" with these forums.

 

Yes, I completely agree.

I am grateful that I will not be alive when this may occur, but am fearful for future generations. All we can do is hope for the best!

 

This may not be of value to anyone here, but...

When I was reading 'The Age of Inflation' by Jacques Rueff, he basically said that a gold standard (actually, gold convertibility) would solve the population and environmentalism problems itself.

The idea behind it (from memory) is that in our current system, in which we have inflation, there is a constant push to beat certain profit margins, at any cost. This means that companies cut corners in order to be more profitable, because they have to be.

And for population, I'm struggling to remember, but it was something along the lines of people taking responsibility for their own resource consumption, or something like that. It's hard to have 10 kids if you can't support them (but of course you can't just put kids back where they came from either).

 

Damn, I saw a video lecture just last week saying essentially this RE resource use/extraction but I forget which one. If I remember I'll try to post it here.

Despite not properly having thought about this twist before, I think I agree with you/Jacques. I don't see how sound money+anarcho-capitalism could possibly make things any worse on these fronts but I can only see a thousand ways in which they would make things better including making resource use far more sustainable.

Saying that though, my first thoughts are that population control to the limit of the local resources has always happened. 100% liberty w.r.t. choice (particularly women's choice) would help and this goes hand-in-hand with anarcho-capitalism. Hence, same outcome in the same world as what you said above but not directly because of a gold standard. Does that make sense?

 

Slavery gets sh*t done....... I'ld buy a couple if you are selling, I have been having trouble get them locally