CONTROVERSIAL: Paper due the 11th.

[Nightfyre]

I am writing a series of papers based on the following concept:
Overpopulation: A result of societal immaturity, which is creating the strife on current economies and ecosystems by creating “over-demand” of resources. Overpopulation is a cause of many of our contemporary issues.

This is what I have thusfar.
Discuss points and counterpoints. Please explore the idea thoroughly. The edges are still rough, but I think this type of forum debate could help my papers considerably.

I will post updates as I progress through the week to be sure.



EDIT: This is definitely a rough sketch of my ideas. Please ask me to clarify any points as it will help shape my paper as well.

COPYRIGHT:
Nightfyre

Society has evolved based on evolution in three aspects of itself. Government, religious doctrine, and particularly philosophical individuals have all brought society to its current state.
Stages of government (size of government):
Anarchy (0)
Packs (1)
Tribes (2)
Republic (corrupt) (imperialistic)(3) (romans)
Monarchy (imperialistic)(4) (brits, French, Spanish pre WWII)
Fascism (imperialistic)(5) (germans, Italians, Japanese WWII)
Monarchy (4) (brits)
Republic (corrupt) (3) (brits prerevolution)
Socialism (corrupt) (4) (Chinese, Russians Coldwar era)
Democracy (less oppressive republic) (2) (America Today)
(Graph Govt.)
Will the world mature in time to recognize the errors of our compulsive desire to procreate?
Most important factors in underdeveloped maturity:
Societal:
Religious Doctrine
People invoke their religion in an attempt to press their own moralities on others. This slows down the people who choose to explore.
Government
Has become so affected by religion that “because the bible said so” is becoming an acceptable justification for amendments and laws.
Cultural Views
Infanticide, males are superior jargon.
Personal:
Religion
Offers “easy way out” to people, cutting off further exploration.
Many choose just to accept what they are fed.

Certainly Society helps one to grow quickly, however, it also hinders individuals by limiting their further growth by closing off worldviews.

[CosmicPal]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Now youre assuming that the resources are the same. What about trees? Can humans produce more trees than they consume over a 150 year time frame?

Yes.

Case in point. The upper Appalaichains in the northeastern part of our contingent states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.

When the settlers landed in our country, that area was sparsely populated by trees. The settlers needing more ample vegetation and such, planted. (Forgive me for I've forgotten the species or types of trees in reference). But, the fact is- the trees have nearly consumed all of New Hampshire and Vermont and Delaware- even though the population continued to rise dramatically, so did the trees.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Now youre assuming that the resources are the same. What about trees? Can humans produce more trees than they consume over a 150 year time frame?

Sure. As long as one of those humans figures out a method to do so. The odds are good. Either that, or someone will invent a material that replaces wood and is common (e.g., plastic).

A professor of mine once mentioned the ratio of value of products between ingenuity and raw materials. We're able to create products now that are highly valuable and use very little raw material. 50 years ago, an adding machine was all full of gears and mechanical things, and printed results in paper. Now we have calculators that are 1/20th the size (less raw material), have internal mechanisms made out of 1/100th of an ounce of silicon, and print their results on long-lasting, reusable LEDs instead of paper. The value of the materials in a calculator are far less than 1 percent of the value of the finished product. I thought it was an interesting point.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Sure. As long as one of those humans figures out a method to do so. The odds are good. Either that, or someone will invent a material that replaces wood and is common (e.g., plastic).

A professor of mine once mentioned the ratio of value of products between ingenuity and raw materials. We're able to create products now that are highly valuable and use very little raw material. 50 years ago, an adding machine was all full of gears and mechanical things, and printed results in paper. Now we have calculators that are 1/20th the size (less raw material), have internal mechanisms made out of 1/100th of an ounce of silicon, and print their results on long-lasting, reusable LEDs instead of paper. The value of the materials in a calculator are far less than 1 percent of the value of the finished product. I thought it was an interesting point.

Look at the damage we are currently causing the environment with our vehicles and coal power plants worldwide. Soon there will be no ozone and the world will be too warm to sustain certain lifeforms. Its only a matter of time until it catches up to us. Also, feeding 10 billion people would be difficult.

[CosmicPal]

You should read some of Wade Davis's work.

Particularly, Shadows in the Sun

An excellent book that will help answer some of your questions. Besides, near the end- it includes a delirious tale of his exploration into the Sonoran deserts of Arizona to smoke toads.

[Nightfyre]

Also, quality of life would drastically increase with a much smaller population because there would be less resource scarcity and damage done to teh environment.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Look at the damage we are currently causing the environment with our vehicles and coal power plants worldwide. Soon there will be no ozone and the world will be too warm to sustain certain lifeforms. Its only a matter of time until it catches up to us. Also, feeding 10 billion people would be difficult.

There is a finite supply of accessible oil (I think estimated at another 30-40 years worth) so I believe that problem will self-correct before the ozone disappears.

Coal is also limited, although I am not sure how much we have.

In general, the best solution to overpopulation would be self-regulation (people would have less children) but that would require a radical shift in world attitude. I wouldn't expect that to occur soon although Japan has come to that point.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by el borracho

There is a finite supply of accessible oil (I think estimated at another 30-40 years worth) so I believe that problem will self-correct before the ozone disappears.

Coal is also limited, although I am not sure how much we have.

In general, the best solution to overpopulation would be self-regulation (people would have less children) but that would require a radical shift in world attitude. I wouldn't expect that to occur soon although Japan has come to that point.

I agree. Self-Regulation is horribly inefficient, but what can one do but draw attention to the problem and its sources? Dogmatism is a plague on this planet.

[Uncle_Ted]

I recently finished the book "Inevitable Surprises" by Peter Schwartz. There is a chapter or two in there discussing current population trends (i.e. rather than booming overpopulation -- which everyone feared 15 yrs. ago -- pop. growth is leveling off and pop. overall is heading toward stabilization rather than uncontrolled growth) and it's a good read.

[Uncle_Ted]

Originally Posted by el borracho

There is a finite supply of accessible oil (I think estimated at another 30-40 years worth) so I believe that problem will self-correct before the ozone disappears.
.

I really don't trust estimates that oil will "run out" in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years. Many experts were saying the same thing 20 years ago. There is a lot of oil out there that is not being exploited because of cost -- i.e. it's too expensive to extract it, like in Canada. As the price of oil continues to rise, more and more of that will be economically feasible to go after.

New oil deposits are also being found, as our drilling technology improves (massive props to the History Channel).

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by el borracho

Coal is also limited, although I am not sure how much we have.

Actually, I believe coal is one resource that is still in abundant supply. Most experts think that the end of the coal supply is nowhere in sight.

[Pants]

Not going, to read the whole thread, but Britain is not a monarhcy but rather a parliamentary system. Also, I'd put a 3 next to America.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

I agree. Self-Regulation is horribly inefficient, but what can one do but draw attention to the problem and its sources? Dogmatism is a plague on this planet.

The other thing (already mentioned in this thread) that effectively reduces population is disease. I have not done any research into the topic but I believe there is a correlation between overpopulation and disease. Certainly there is a correlation between ignorance and disease which is one of the reasons why disease is so devastating in underdeveloped countries where education is poor. Of course the other problem in underdeveloped nations is the poverty which is typically associated with unsanitary living conditions.

Religious-based and culture-based attitudes are excepcionally difficult to change. Unfortunately, procreation is often rooted in these concepts so again, I would say education might be the most effective tool in combatting overpopulation.

[el borracho]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ted

I really don't trust estimates that oil will "run out" in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years. Many experts were saying the same thing 20 years ago. There is a lot of oil out there that is not being exploited because of cost -- i.e. it's too expensive to extract it, like in Canada. As the price of oil continues to rise, more and more of that will be economically feasible to go after.

New oil deposits are also being found, as our drilling technology improves (massive props to the History Channel).

Ok, depends who one believes, I guess. I am certainly not an expert but my original statement is true. There is a finite supply of accessible oil. At some point that supply will be exhausted.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Metrolike

Not going, to read the whole thread, but Britain is not a monarhcy but rather a parliamentary system. Also, I'd put a 3 next to America.

FWIW, I was speaking of prerevolutionary britain.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Actually, I believe coal is one resource that is still in abundant supply. Most experts think that the end of the coal supply is nowhere in sight.

Yeah, last year in my environment class, the prof said there's enough to last another 500 years at the current consumption rates.

ANd my bad about the monarchy Nightfyre, I thought you were listing them according to a timeline. The revolution took place long before WWI.