In terms of actual land area the World has an average population density of around 50 per sq. km. If you reduce the total area to exclude forests, mounatain ranges and deserts we are left with around 60-65. Most European countries have densities exceeding this - England by about 7 times that rate, and Germany by about 6. Both countries are also not rich in natural resources (Germany less so). Is there a 'natural level' of population density beyond which we cannot go ? I don't think that anyone has ever really answered this. The whole thing is in relation to resources. The idea of a Worldwide birth control, based on one child each, presumes that there would be a World government which could regulate this. Such a government would, presumably, be dominated by those very same countries which are creating the largest Co2 emissions ie. the Western World, China, and the oil producing Arab states - countries which are, per head of population, consuming resouces at the rate of 4 planets each. And these countries would be telling the others to cut their populations ? This is buck passing on a large scale.
Off Topic Society
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
It is not all about dividing one figure by another Cologne. Sometimes you have to go on gut feel. I am sure the people you hate so much can justify a world population of 20 billion and beyond with their marvellous inventions and plastic cows to feed us.
The world is lumpy. We can see that 8 billion is really a problem. Yet a population of just 1 billion would be comfortably less than we have now and must give lebensraum. Why do we have to cram billions onto the planet because the last two centuries have been uncontrolled?
This thread is about an ideal society, not one I expect to occur. I can envisage a world with a billion people where nobody goes hungry, where all have places to live, where those who want a "primitive" but simple society can have it while others can have technology up to their eyeballs. Nobody has to conform to the weird ideas of someone else because shortage does not exist. You may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one; perhaps one day you'll join us and the world can live as one. Sorry but I love John Lennon's Imagine. To me this would be a society rather than the sort you propose which would not suit many people at all.
The world is lumpy. We can see that 8 billion is really a problem. Yet a population of just 1 billion would be comfortably less than we have now and must give lebensraum. Why do we have to cram billions onto the planet because the last two centuries have been uncontrolled?
This thread is about an ideal society, not one I expect to occur. I can envisage a world with a billion people where nobody goes hungry, where all have places to live, where those who want a "primitive" but simple society can have it while others can have technology up to their eyeballs. Nobody has to conform to the weird ideas of someone else because shortage does not exist. You may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one; perhaps one day you'll join us and the world can live as one. Sorry but I love John Lennon's Imagine. To me this would be a society rather than the sort you propose which would not suit many people at all.
I am not sure that it all comes down to numbers Arturo. Even a World of one billion people would have to take care of the environment. Some of the worst polluters on this planet live in countries where they have ample space. The Americans have a population density of far less than the World average - in the case of Russia it is even more extreme, yet both these nations are amongst the worst in terms of Co2 emissions per head. Countries with cramped populations often do not have the same negative impact. You know yourself that a block of flats uses less resources per head, than if the same population lived in detached houses. It could well be that the billion remaining would increase their emissions per head as a result - at least if they had any real living standards.
Nobody suggests that a world of one billion should NOT take care of the environment. My argument is the exact opposite. With 8 billion whatever we do is going to have little effect and not work. With one billion - we would have no need ever to use power from non renewable resources. Forests could be regrown etc etc. With several billion less "houses" we could cope with detached- or semi. Nobody would have to live in a high rise block risking fire threats. The population of animals raised for food would shrink massively. Cars could all be electric - or who knows future technology - better. The number of journeys taken by all forms of transport would drop massively.
My assumption is that if humanity were intelligent enough to shrink the infestation of people on the planet it would be intelligent enough then to steward the world properly.
If this thread were about reality though I would say we will do little or nothing about population and give everyone an excuse to keep moaning while running around like headless chickens being ineffective.
Would the number of journeys necessarily sink ? With one billion people we can presume that they would spread out over the available space - thus they could well be spacially more spread out. Perhaps all people would then be semi rural. The fact is that the rural population has a higher Co2 balance per head than the urban population. The reasons for this are that they drive more often, have more to do with deliveries, and have higher use of resources in heating than people do in cities.
We do what we can Arturo - are you suggesting that we wait for a World government to control everything from above before doing anything ?
No - because this is not a thread trying to solve the world's problems. I am talking about a society I would prefer to live in. I do not accept your negativity about how bad people can always make the world. You always take the bad aspects of what we do and imagine how much worse we can make it. I prefer to think that in a world of intelligence it is possible to educate people to want better. I am optimistic that people have begun to recognise the harm we have done to the planet. It used to be considered so large that nothing we could do would really affect it. This last century has proved that is false thinking. If you do not think people have learned from their mistakes you will assume they will go on making them and so have a negative view. I am more optimistic. You have now mentioned world government lots of times and I have not mentioned it once. That is in your thoughts - not mine. I do not see a world government anywhere in the near future, if at all. I do though see governments developing that are able to cooperate - is it not you who says mankind is a cooperative creature?
With modern technology it is easier and easier to "meet" on line. My brother runs his business from near Aberdeen - an dmost of his contacts are electronic. He only travels on odd occasions when it is necessary to do so.
In my world a lot of people could adopt your style of preferred living - local with cooperatives - because the pressures of the population have been removed.
Still if you think a world of 8 billion is fine then we differ.
I have never said that 8 billion is ok. There is no 'Green' on this planet who would not welcome a falling population but there is no consensus as to the means, and so the theme is not emphasized. It is possible over the medium of World government, or through raised awareness and education, but as long as many third World countries have no effective welfare state then people will continue to have lots of babies. For the rest of the World it would make sense to reverse the emphasis of our tax systems - ie. the more children you have then the more tax you pay. I would also completely 'privatize' marriage, so that the state has nothing to do with this sphere and being married gives no tax or legal advantages over cohabiting. We have to make it more expensive to have children. What I have said is, however, there is no automatic correlation ie. fewer people = fewer emissions. We should start with the people who are creating the most emissions.
I do not think you could be more wrong. Unless people were irresponsible then it is automatic. In fact at the moment the aim is fewer emissions even with more people. I do not advocate an irresponsible world.
Greens of all people should talk to each other across the boundaries you do not like and coordinate an aim. Then persuade, persuade, persuade. If pressure groups have no influence why bother?
To focus on this as a 'world problem', or as a problem only of overpopulation leads us to the false conclusions Arturo, because Co2 emissions are not evenly balanced across the whole World population. The USA makes up around 2% of the World's population but around 16% of World emissions. China is the biggest producer (but not per head of population) and appears well aware of the need to restrict population size - being the only country ever to actually bring in laws related to this. Japan's population is decreasing anyway. India appears to be the biggest problem in this respect. Most other countries with rising populations eg. Indonesia, do not register as major polluters in this sense. The EU. the USA, China, India, Russia and Japan produce 68.63% of the World's Co2 emissions. It is there we should be starting Arturo, not lecturing the rest about the need for birth control.
Your statistics are all irrelevant for a world of 1 billion people using no fossil fuels.
This is all pie in the sky Arturo. Barring a massive epidemic or a nuclear war of catastrophic proportions, how many generations of responsible breeding would it take to get the World's population down to the figure you suggest ? We don't have that much time. Of course population control is desirable and must happen, but it can only be a supportive method. The West, China and India have to reduce their emissions dramatically, there is no way around that.
Three.
8 million >> 4 million>> 2 million>> 1 million.
OK in practice there would be a lagged effect but essentially if each female were only to produce one live birth then in three generations there would be one eighth of females.
I agree this is pie in the sky - it will not happen but the question was what sort of society do we want. I want one in a world of 1 billion people where pollution would then be at a level that natural resources could deal with it. Food would be plentiful, space not a premium so housing available for everyone, forests would come back and we would not have to have the type of society that tells people they cannot have cars or any other consumer goods.
World problems all solved in less than a hundred years - and the price - for three generation one child per family. China had that policy for a while so it is not impossible to dream.
As I said - you may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one.
We do not have a hundred years. Nore can we trust in technological solutions to solve problems which were created by technology in the first place. Only wholesale changes in consumer habits can have the desired effect in the here and now. Trusting to technology to solve this is like saying to a chain smoker that he should carry on puffing because one day there may be a universal cure for cancer.
and you think you can change the type of lifestyle that people lead now do you? It is no more realistic than the 1 billion solution.
I think you are confusing the thread about a desired society with one that deals with practicality of modern life. They are two very different subjects.
I think you are confusing the thread about a desired society with one that deals with practicality of modern life. They are two very different subjects.
Just to take the breeding habits of the world off the table for a few moments, I did think about society for a few minutes when I watched the rugby. A united Ireland team sing the following.
Ireland, Ireland,
Together standing tall!
Shoulder to shoulder,
We'll answer Ireland's call!
Sport seems better at drawing together countries than politicians do. At a time when there are people putting a unity together at risk, maybe we should ask some sportsmen and women to create a new party that belts out Ireland Calls over there, and then maybe we could get something that draws society together in GB.
Ireland, Ireland,
Together standing tall!
Shoulder to shoulder,
We'll answer Ireland's call!
Sport seems better at drawing together countries than politicians do. At a time when there are people putting a unity together at risk, maybe we should ask some sportsmen and women to create a new party that belts out Ireland Calls over there, and then maybe we could get something that draws society together in GB.
We do not have a hundred years. Nore can we trust in technological solutions to solve problems which were created by technology. Only wholesale changes in consumer habits can have the desired effect in the here and now. Trusting to technology is like
What other choice is there Arturo ? The World has enough resources for our needs, but not our greed. I cannot change the consumer habits of the World - but I can change my own, and hope to help change the immediate environment around me. I can do no more. If enough individuals do the same it may make a difference. Some years back we were working on a municipal development concept (Gemeindeentwicklungskonzept) for Engelskirchen, which is still ongoing. With the goal of halving the Co2 emissions directly concerned with Engelskirchen - these include changes in agriculture, transport, recycling etc.etc. We now produce most of our electricity locally. We cannot wait for movement from above - it is our responsibility to take over the intitiative for our town, so far as it is possible. I hope others do the same.
What I meant was that your points are for the environment thread. This is more of a wish list.
As it happens I disagree with most of your comments but will only answer once more here as this is the wrong thread for me. You do not trust technology - you trust people. They can develop better technologies and control those we have - the fact that they did not in the past was down mostly to ignorance.
The world does not have enough resources for 8 billion people. Your definition of greed may not be someone else's so you cannot think your definition is superior - somebody else has the right to different opinions that are equally valid with yours. Not all of us want to live in hovel communes as those "greedy" people would counter your accusations.
You are correct that you can only act individually and not control what others consume - but all of us have voices and can use those to educate and persuade. If your views have resonance they may win enough people over to make a difference - especially if those people are in "power". Look at the negative effect Trump is having.
You have to have a vision before your actions can influence others - my vision is a sustainable world population - yours seems to be a world where people are denied what you consider excessive.
Can you not accept that we have to change our lifestyle ? You are trusting in future technology, which may, or may not be valid, but it cannot be the only course of action - any more than hypothesizing over a future state of one billion inhabitants. Do you really want to sacrifice 7 billion people so that your lifestyle does not have to change ? The question of sustainability is an arbitrary one - how do we know what the optimal population is ? 8 billion, one billion, 200 - nobody can say for certain. We have the resources for 8 billion people if those resources are used wisely and justly - and it makes sense to plan for what is, rather than what might be. You have also misjudged me if you imagine my dream as being a 'hovel'. I am not disagreeing with you about population - it is just wise to have a plan B. I am not telling you how to spend your money - though there are responsible ways of doing this, but rather recognizing that your freedoms end at the point where your exercise of them restricts my freedoms ie. your exhaust fumes are my air.
I do accept that lifestyle changes are needed. We should respect the planet and develop technologies to enable it. Wind, solar and wave are steps in that direction - going back to the horse and cart is not.
Not a single person would be sacrificed. I think having only one child per family though counts as the most enormous change to lifestyle you could envisage. Unlike your solution it would also actually work - but as it is no more realistic than a Kropotkin-centric universe it is just theory.
I cannot agree that 8 billion is a sustainable figure. Just my personal view that 1 billion would be.
I do not think your dream is a hovel - but you value judge a person as greedy - I said those people may value judge you too.
It seems you agree with population reduction as an ideal and I agree with treating the environment better too. We just disagree on the speed, method and extent of each.
Where we do disagree is that I feel you have more in common with early religious people - especially puritans - in that you have decided a "good" way to live and would expect others to adopt it. I, on the other hand would like to see people with your views live in a cooperative and communal society while other people who want cars and expensive holidays can have those too. I see no way to judge your ideal against your "greedy" man's.
I do not think that there is a 'good' way to live - just ways which are less damaging to the environment. I do not think it is enough to wait until countries make international treaties to reduce Co2 emissions - every individual is responsible for their own. Unfortunately your car effects my environment, whereas my 'commune' does not effect yours - therein lies the difference. I cannot identify what 'greed' is - but I can say that taking more than you need from the World is dependent on someone else doing without, and that is theft. Actually the World does not belong to us exclusively - my ideal society would be living with nature, and not from it. You are not far wrong in suspecting that I come from a religious background Arturo, though I try not to bring this into debates such as this - although I have advocated 'communal' ownership, because the concept is understandable, in my heart I believe in no such concept as ownership. How can I own a field ? Do I own every living thing within it ? The field, or the forest, belongs to itself - so maybe I belonged on the Indian prairies somewhere.