If mankind doesn't slow down population growth. Isn't disease our only hope

[Quixote1818]

to survive as a species? I know this is a controversial subject but it seems to me as long as the population explodes our doom is inevitable sooner or later unless billions are killed off by disease or war, natures natural selection.

Of course renewable resources can allow us to expand the population more than before but eventually even that will be overtaken by overpopulation. We simply cant keep growing the population at the current rate and expect things to work out fine.

I hate to say it but War and disease will likely be the great equalizer to bring the planet back into balance. This is a depressing thought but I hope it's disease and not a world war that strikes first.

I hate to bring this subject up because it's so depressing but it's a problem we simply MUST face sooner or later.

So the question is: HOW DO WE SLOW DOWN POPULATION GROWTH SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE THE WORLD IN CHAOS?

[ananda]

1. That's positively...

... Malthusian.

Have you read Stanislaw Lem?

[acmejack]

5. Malthus was an optimist!

w/o petroleum based agriculture, especially the fertilizers, there is no way productivity can be maintained anywhere near historic levels.

[benburch]

2. Stavation and exposure are more likely... nt

[HereSince1628]

3. Don't underplay violence. There is desperate hunger before starvation

[porphyrian]

4. We don't have to be nearly as destructively parasitic as we are.

The problem isn't merely our numbers, it's how we choose to live.

[greyl]

29. True.

Although how our culture chooses to live is a direct cause of over-population, eh? ;)
At the moment there are many cultures on this planet that are doing it in a sustainable way. However, our culture says "those people over there are living the wrong way."
It's a total myth.

[XemaSab]

46. What cultures are living sustainably?

Pray tell?

[greyl]

49. The ones that aren't ours. :) Here's a few that begin with "A":

A: Abaknon, Acahuayo, Acawoio, Accawa, Acewaio, Achual, Agua, Aguajun, Aguaruna, Ahuajun, Ainu, Akavais, Akawai, Kawaio, Akawoio, Aka, Akha (Burma), Akha (Laos), Alacalufe, Alakaluf, Aluku Maroons, Amage, Amagues, Amahuaca, Amaje, Amajo, Amanagé, Amanaié, Amanaye, Amawaca, Amawaka, Amenguaca, Amoishe, Amondawa, Amondaua, Amueixa, Amuese, Amuesha, Amuetamo, Anapia, Angotero, Appais, Applai, Arahuaco, Arakanese, Araucanos, Araona, Araote, Araradeuá, Arawak (French Guiana), Arawak (Guyana), Arawete, Arecuna, Arekuna, Ariana, Arowak, Ashaninka, Asamat, Asemer, Asmat, Asomat, Asurini, Asurinikin, Atacamenos, Aukan, Avakatueté, Awaeté, Aymara (Bolivia), Aymara (Chile), Ayore, Ayoreo,

for some of the rest, look here:
nativeplanet.org

[XemaSab]

59. Thanks for the link!

Many of these listed are different names for the same culture.

Of the individual groups, many are assimilated, and many of the non-assimilated groups are nearly extirpated. Many of them have under 100 people.

From what I can tell, there are very, very few people alive today living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and many of them are on small islands or in the rainforest, and the rainforest is not a very giving place for humans.

[greyl]

64. It's a sad state of affairs, isn't it?

Considering how many successful cultures have dwindled or disappeared under the tracks of our culture's totalitarian expansion is at once depressing and infuriating.
I wonder if we figure out how to save those people, we will also be saving us and rest of the community of life.


edit: I do not mean save in the salvationist religious sense. I mean "not destroy".

[manic expression]

77. The US uses about 25% of the world's energy

So, just about every culture except for us. Also, Europe, while being developed, has maintained a good rate of energy usage.

[Jamison]

6. I think it could be disease too.

Not enough people die off from wars to really make a difference. Even with the destruction and death of WW2, it really didn't even make a dent in world population.

I'm thinking some new, horrid strain of virus that acts swiftly, and has a mortality rate that is nearly 100% will ravage us.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. The black death in Europe and the near-East set back population

levels by 250 years. An equivalent die-off today would kill 4 billion people.

[sweetheart]

7. global thermonuclear war

Real men kill off their civilizatin with nukes... ;-)

[bryant69]

8. Well it's impossible to say what the future holds

Technological innovation may help a bit, however.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[greyl]

9. We need to stop increasing the food supply.

Our culture has been contributing to the 3rd world population explosion.

Disease is a result of overpopulation, not a solution.

[XemaSab]

48. Exactly what are you saying here?

Are you trying to say that the US should intentionally cut food production in order to starve the poor?

How can you say that!

[greyl]

95. I'm saying it's no kindness to guarantee that there will be

an increase in the number of starving people in the world by fueling the population explosion beyond the point of sustainability.
What's better: 500 million people starving to death or 1 billion?

[T Town Jake]

88. Yeah, those pesky "3rd world" folks are quite the eaters, aren't they?

:sarcasm:

Your post is a disgrace to this forum.

[Yupster]

10. I think moving people to other planets

is the eventual answer.

It is also necessary so the species doeswn't get wiped out when earth is eventually pummelled by another meteor or whatever which is bound to happen someday.

It does seem like nature will eventually take care of it after we've ruined the planet either through famine or disease.

[Cleita]

24. I dunno. Although the Star Trek idea may become plausible,

I wonder what damage our footprint on other worlds will cause? I suppose if terraforming were possible, planets and moons in our Solar System could be converted to earthlike worlds way into the future.

[0rganism]

28. As we continue fucking up the perfectly good planet we already have...

...I'm not going to put a whole lot of faith in our being able to make working planets out of the currently uninhabitable ones.

As a middle-term solution, terraforming and colonization are probably inevitable.

In both the short-term and the very long-term, they're unworkable, practically and theoretically.

[greyl]

31. Agreed!

How the hell could exporting our unsustainable and destructive lifestyle to other heavenly bodies solve the problem? Doing that would disrespect all life on this planet that doesn't belong to our culture. Ah, but what's new? ;)

[MisterP]

78. not to mention the tremendous start-up costs: it's not like

you can drop a few nukes and Mars will start flowing

[wickerwoman]

87. It's not so far in the future.

I just watched a documentary with some scientists who think we could sustain life on Mars after only 60 or so years. We just have to drop off some algae and let them do their thing. Then gradually add more complex plant life until a breathable atmosphere emerged.

We have the technology to go to Mars now. We just don't have the money or the will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. "We don't have the money" means "It's impossible"

because it means we don't have the resources to do it. Similarly, we have the technology to provide everyone on Earth with a fabulous lifestyle, on this planet, that would be the envy of everyone alive today. We just don't have the money to do it.

[patcox2]

11. War and Famine work well, too!

Those are the traditional means.

[Ready4Change]

13. Mankind, as an organism, is not sentient.

We're the opposite of an ant colony.

Ants, as individuals, are dumb as rocks. But an ant colony is smarter than its individuals. More organized. The sum is greater than the total of it's parts.

The sum of humans, however, is less that the total of its parts. Talk to an individual human and most will conceed the value in population control, resource conservation, etc. But society blunders heedlessly on.

We seem to have a handle on major plague/pestulence control. I think famine is what will get us, once we truly outstrip our resources.

[400Years]

47. good point

It is always amazing how individuals seem so much smarter than society as a whole.

[melody]

14. No, technology is our hope

Nanotechnology in particular.

>War and disease

Bovine excrement.

Read a little Buckminster Fuller. He shoots down Malthus with remarkable ease.

[400Years]

19. faith in technology is misguided

and may be the source of our destruction rather than the solution

[melody]

26. well, I can't disagree with you enough

I think that's Luddism and counterproductive. If the choices are destruction or technology, you really want to choose to just die rather than at least fight?

[greyl]

27. That's a false dilemma.

Fact is, our culture has been busy conquering the world for 10,000 years and now she's at our feet bleeding to death. The idea that we just need to conquer the world even better is insane.
I believe that changed minds will save the world, not technology.
(I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with technology)

[melody]

34. The dilemma was as stated

I was responding to the question with the given set of criteria - read the initial post. The question was "war and famine". I gave an Artistotelian option within the game rules of the initial question.

Doo dah doo dah

[greyl]

35. It's a false dilemma.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the false dilemma.
Na na na na Na na na na. Hey hey hey. Good pie. :)

[melody]

37. I'll give you a false dilemma and raise you a falser dilemma-er... uhm...

:silly:

[400Years]

30. the choice is not "destruction or technology" but rather

can we change our ways.

We've been going down the road of technology worship for too long and look where it has gotten us. Take a look at the destruction all around this planet that has been the result of technology.

The real question is when will mankind stop viewing nature as the enemy?

[melody]

36. I think the real question is why we don't see technology as natural

In the case of nanotechnology, especially so.

I regard this conservative heterodoxy as the left's equivalent of the very kind of anti-stem cell/anti-science stuff in the right wing. The question isn't what is done, but how we can manage what is done. If technology can improve peoples' lives (and if future technology is our only choice beyond simply giving up and going back to the plow), I think we can consciously and intelligently approach its application. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? It seems an extreme answer to a question.

We really don't have much of a choice since I think Moore's Law is showing us (especially recently) we're nearing some event horizon where we'll need to deal with this anyway.

[greyl]

39. Yes, technology IS natural.

It's just that we can choose to use it in ways that foster life on this planet or in ways that don't. Technology isn't the problem but many of our applications of technology are.

[melody]

41. absolutely, so a conscious and intelligent application of technology is it

That's what we're discussing, not merely blind "Better Living through Chemicals". Nanotech, used correctly, if its full possibility is reached, will completely remake civilization is very positive ways.

[400Years]

44. technology is not a neutral force

Cars, computers, televisions, etc., All of these things shape the way you view the world around you. They have a mediating effect on how you interact with the world. Without them your understanding of the world would be different. Thus it is not neutral.

Nobody is claiming we need to revert to some kind of mythical cave man status but pretending that technology will save us in the face of so much evidence to the contrary seems rather strange to me.

The very problem the OP is addressing is the result of technology.

[melody]

60. It is a neutral force

It's just a tool - it can be used wisely or unwisely. TV can give us PBS or Fox News. The medium itself is neutral.

That said, I have to go make deadlines. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[400Years]

97. You are sadly mistaken, I have heard people say this repeatedly

but that doesn't make it true.

Here is a good essay on the subject:

Technology

Tech-nol-o-gy n. According to Webster's: industrial or applied science.
In reality: the ensemble of division of labor/production/industrialism
and its impact on us and on nature. Technology is the sum of mediations
between us and the natural world and the sum of those separations
mediating us from each other. it is all the drudgery and toxicity
required to produce and reproduce the stage of hyper-alienation we live
in. It is the texture and the form of domination at any given stage of
hierarchy and commodification.

Those who still say that technology is "neutral," "merely a tool," have
not yet begun to consider what is involved. Junger, Adorno and
Horkheimer, Ellul and a few others over the past decades - not to
mention the crushing, all but unavoidable truth of technology in its
global and personal toll - have led to a deeper approach to the topic.
Thirty-five years ago the esteemed philosopher Jaspers wrote that
"Technology is only a means, in itself neither good nor evil. Everything
depends upon what man makes of it, for what purpose it serves him, under
what conditions he places it." The archaic sexism aside, such
superficial faith in specialization and technical progress is
increasingly seen as ludicrous. Infinitely more on target was Marcuse
when he suggested in 1964 that "the very concept of technical reason is
perhaps ideological. Not only the application of technology, but
technology itself is domination... methodical, ascientific, calculated,
calculating control." Today we experience that control as a steady
reduction of our contact with the living world, a speeded-up Information
Age emptyness drained by computerization and poisoned by the dead,
domesticating imperialism of high-tech method. Never before have people
been so infantalized, made so dependant on the machine for everything;
as the earth rapidly approaches its extinction due to technology, our
souls are shrunk and flattened by its pervasive rule. Any sense of
wholeness and freedom can only return by the undoing of the massive
division of labour at the heart of technological progress. This is the
liberatory project in all its depth.

Of course, the popular literature does not yet reflect a critical
awareness of what technology is. Some works completely embrace the
direction we are being taken, such as McCorduck's 'Machines Who Think'
and Simons' 'Are Computers Alive?', to mention a couple of the more
horrendous. Other, even more recent books seem to offer a judgement that
finally flies in the face of mass pro-tech propaganda, but fail
dismally as they reach their conclusions. Murphy, Mickunas and Pilotta
edited 'The Underside of High-Tech: Technology and the Deformation of
Human Sensibilities' , who's ferocious title is completely undercut by
an ending that technology will become human as soon as we change our
assumptions about it! Very similar is Siegel and Markoff's 'The High
Cost of High Tech'; after chapters detailing the various levels of
technological debilitation, we once again learn that its all just a
question of attitude: "We must, as a society, understand the full impact
of high technology if we are to shape it into a tool for enhancing human
comfort, freedom and peace." This kind of cowardice and/or dishonesty
owes only in part to the fact that major publishing corporations do not
wish to publicize fundamentally radical ideas.

The above-remarked flight into idealism is not a new tactic of
avoidance. Martin Heidegger, considered by some the most original and
deep thinker of this century, saw the individual becoming only so much
raw material for the limitless expansion of industrial technology.
Incredibly, his solution was to find in the Nazi movement the essential
"encounter between global technology and modern man." Behind the
rhetoric of National Socialism, unfortunately, was only an acceleration
of technique, even into the sphere of genocide as a problem of
industrial production. For the Nazis and the gullible, it was, again a
question of how technology is understood ideally, not as it really is.
In 1940, the General Inspector for the German Road System put it this
way: "Concrete and stone are material things. Man gives them form and
spirit. National Socialist technology possesses in all material
achievement ideal content."

[greyl]

53. I don't think so. Changed minds and vision are more important.

Creative vision is what is usually behind a technological advance, right? I just think vision is absolutely foremost.

"*fill in the blank*", used correctly, if its full possibility is reached, will completely remake civilization is very positive ways."

Catch my drift? :)

[melody]

56. Which is what I intended to say

All technology is, is a tool. We can use fire to warm or to burn down homes. That doesn't make fire "bad" or "good". It's the direction behind it. We're discussing tools here, not probative visions, imo.

Nuff said on my side of things. Thanks for the discussion.

[400Years]

98. If all you have is a hammer then everything begins to look like a nail

There are other solutions to the problems posed that are not technological.

[0rganism]

57. "used correctly"

Aye, there's the rub

If you're going to put all your eggs in one basket, you'd better make sure it's a very solid basket.

[melody]

62. And the choice is?

We're going to stay back with the plow or advance, at this generalized a stage in development. I stand with those who favor fire, because ice will eventually destroy us, too.

[0rganism]

67. all of the above

There will be some increases in support capacity due to technological advances. There will be some decreases in population due to diseases and wars and uneven food supplies and (I hope mostly) responsible family planning. Eventually, a zero population growth rate is going to happen somehow. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but it is the future of humanity.

[ieoeja]

42. I'm looking.

And I must say that I'm pretty happy with where I see it has gotten us.

[400Years]

45. What has it gotten us

Let's see an overpopulated planet that is on the verge of imploding.
But hey, at least you can watch reruns of the Loveboat.

[MisterP]

79. but that's a lot like driving at 60 mph into a red light in the hopes

it'll turn green in time

[melody]

82. Why is making the choice to drive in the first place the same as speeding?

Isn't the only other choice beyond driving just sitting where we are at the side of the road?

[Ready4Change]

84. Technology is just a hammer.

A hammer can build a house. A hammer can tear it down. It doesn't solve problems until someone chooses to USE IT to solve the problem.

The problem here is that our population rise is, and has always been, just slightly ahead of our technological (and societal) means of feeding that population.

Or, in other words, as we develop the ability to feed our current population, that population has increased so that people are STILL starving.

Technology, applied that way, doesn't solve the problem. It just extends it.

Now, if we, as a planet wide organism, would choose to use technology to limit our population grown, then we would be able to develop the means to feed that existing, non increasing population. But we already HAVE the technology to control our population rise. (The pill, condoms, sterilization, etc...)

What we don't have is the societal will to do so on a global basis. That's not technology. That's politics.

[0rganism]

15. As Dr. Bartlett puts in in "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy"...

Take everything we as humans traditionally think of to be good and pure:
Motherhood
Health
Longevity
Affordable medicines
Peace
Cheap food
Big families
etc.

Put them on one side, and then put all the opposites, the questionable or downright awful stuff, on the other:
Abortion
Illness
Short lifespans
Lack of medical care
War
Famine
Contraception
etc.

Everything on the "good" side of the list exacerbates the problem of unrestricted exponential population growth. Items on the "bad" side of the list are the various solutions. If we don't choose wisely from the "bad" side, we can bet that Nature will make the choice for us.

View his presentation on the topic here:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

[Loonman]

16. Colonize the universe

Mars!

[0rganism]

23. Not a workable solution in itself, unfortunately

Without some amazing innovations in terraforming and transportation technology, we would not be able to keep up with population growth.

Remember that in the 1930s, the human population of this planet was a third of what it is today. That works out to about a "modest" 1.6% growth rate, or a population doubling every 44 years. If we filled up this planet and then found another one just like it within colonization distance, it would take 44 years at this rate of growth to fill that one up too. Then, let's say we find, build, or otherwise acquire two more terran-class planets, how long would it take to fill them up?

44 years.

So you can see that we don't really solve our problems that way.

[greyl]

58. How the hell do you think we got here?

How's that working out for us, huh? :)

kidding

[Igel]

17. Too late: they beat you to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm#graphic

For country-by-country info:
http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/23.html

Note the appropriate generalization: Prosperity and education correlate strongly with lower birthrates; at a certain point, fertility falls below replacement levels. Developed countries typically have negative or zero population growth. This was reached last generation in Europe and Japan, so they're into absolute population decline territory. In the US we've just recently reached it; most population growth in the US is the result of immigration. Developing countries have seen their fertility drop recently, but they're still usually above replacement.

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm is now hopelessly out of date, I suspect for pedagogical reasons (preaching "everything's going to be ok" is lame). The latest numbers I've seen incorporate the info reported in the BBC link and have global population predicted to peak c. 2050, with a gradually increasing tail-off over the next 50 years (with no claims about behavior after 2100).

[robcon]

18. Those statistics disprove Malthus

Malthus assumed that children would be born until resources couldn't support them (or war/disease killed them off.) The opposite is true: people have fewer children when they have more money.

No prediction in social science is more secure than middle class people will have fewer children.

[400Years]

20. but the whole world can't live a middle class lifestyle

just not possible

[XemaSab]

50. We can change our ideas of what middle class is

People can be comfortable, healthy, and educated without "things."

[400Years]

99. true

[the_spectator]

38. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Thanks for the needed dose of (happy) reality!

[Quixote1818]

68. Only problem here is that developed nations use up all the natural

resources. If we develop all the 3rd world nations into first world nations we will increase natural resource depletion ten fold. Thats much more than the world can withstand I believe.

[insane_cratic_gal]

21. I thought fundies

wanted us to have more babies because our population is down? Or maybe that is just Americans?

[greyl]

33. Fundies don't want US to have more babies.

They just want their own to have more babies.

[Cleita]

22. Wow, where have I heard that before?

A proven method of slowing population growth is to give women complete control over their fertility and the means and education to make choices. Studies in third world countries have shown that population growth slows when women can limit their families to the number of children they can afford to raise.

Any other method of population control is only right wing fascism bordering on ethnic cleansing because you know war and disease is going to affect developing countries of brown people not the industrialized nations. I also ran across a website whose proponents said that an ammendment had to be added to the Constitution to limit children to two per family.

Boy, I am so happy Big Brother hasn't gotten that many followers. Can you imagine how awful it would be on women to enforce an ammendment like that?

[raccoon]

25. Resource consumption is a big part of the problem, too.

People in the industrialized countries consume much more than the average citizen in a Third World country.

Can we reasonably say to them, "You've got to quit having so many children, but I'm going to continue to consume as much as I'm accustomed to consuming?"

[greyl]

32. Daniel Quinn - Ishmael

There's no better thread to mention this book, so...
Everybody should read Ishmael, My Ishmael, and The Story of B by Daniel Quinn. :)

Given the realities of our situation, going back to the hunting-gathering life is as silly an idea as sprouting wings and flying off to heaven. We can walk away from the pyramid, but we can't melt away into the jungle. The Mayan solution is utterly gone for us, for the simple reason that the jungle itself is gone and there are six billion of us. Forget about going back. There is no back. Back is gone.

But we can still walk away from the pyramid.

Daniel Quinn - Beyond Civilization
http://www.ishmael.org/welcome.cfm

edit:changed quote

[XemaSab]

51. The Mayans didn't live sustainably

their civilization collapsed when they depleted the soil around their cities.

(Sorry if I took the word "Mayan" out of context.. it just bugs me when people assume that so-called Native societies lived sustainably in perfect harmony with the Earth.)

[0rganism]

54. That was the point of the quote, if you read it carefully

The Mayans largely (albeit not completely, there were still some Mayan population centers at the time the Spaniards arrived) abandoned their "civilized" society and "returned to the jungle", as the author puts it. We won't have the same "luxury" this time around.

[XemaSab]

61. Was it by choice

or by necessity?

[greyl]

66. If our culture finds a new vision, will it be by choice or necessity?

To answer your question though, it was by choice. If it wasn't by choice, they would have returned to their lifestyle when drought was over just as we have done in our culture after major disasters time and time again. At one time the Mayans thought that they were living the One Right Way, then they simply changed their minds.

[XemaSab]

69. It wasn't a drought

it was total agricutural collapse.

They lived on crappy, nutrient poor soils that they totally stripped with intensive agriculture. It's taken centuries for the soils to support dense vegetation again.

[greyl]

75. It's definitely debatable.

Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization
A series of multi-year droughts helped to doom an ancient culture
Larry C. Peterson, Gerald H. Haug

"Scholars have advanced a variety of theories over the years, pinning the fault on everything from internal warfare to foreign intrusion, from widespread outbreaks of disease to a dangerous dependence on monocropping, from environmental degradation to climate change. Some combination of these and other factors may well be where the truth lies. However, in recent years, evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/44510?fulltext=true&print=yes

What isn't so debatable is whether or not Mayans took their vision of civilization with them to land with better soil.

[0rganism]

70. What about a choice made by necessity?

Perhaps they saw that the numbers weren't working out (the Mayans were mathematically competent) and chose to leave rather than try to fix things from within a failing system. Similar questions are raised about the Hohokam and the Anasazi societies. There comes a time when rational people are forced to look at the effects their lives have on the world around them and vice versa, and make decisions.

I don't know of anyone who's asserting that these peoples left thousands of years of developed cities and cultures behind just because it wasn't fun enough or sufficiently stylish. There were certainly more compelling reasons, but they don't remove the aspect of choice from the picture. Doubtless there were those who stayed behind for a while to try to see it through, and the recent discoveries of Anasazi cannibalism may well indicate something about what happened to those who did.

[greyl]

55. You read that wrong. The Mayans abandoned their toilsome

and unsustainable way of life and 'returned to the jungle'. The Mayans were an example of "our" culture who had the wherewithal to leave it behind.
Quinn means that the Mayan solution was to leave the pyramid behind, not that the Mayans are examples of so-called "Noble Savages".

[XemaSab]

63. I have read absolutely nothing

to indicate that the Mayans voluntarily gave up their lifestyle to return to the jungle.

[manic expression]

81. Even if it was by necessity

the point is that they gave up what wasn't working out. They accepted the end of that era of their society. Did they frantically try to find a better way of using the soil, or mow down the jungle to get new lands to plant on, all the while simply delaying the inevitable? No. They did what was best for them, not what they thought was best for their petty and selfish wants.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Discovery supports view Maya civilization "collapsed by endemic warfare"

Maya 'War Crimes Scene' Uncovered

# Archeologists say bones and other items indicate a massacre that was key to the civilization's fall.

Archeologists excavating the ruined Guatemalan city of Cancuen have stumbled across the remains of what they believe is one of the pivotal events in the collapse of the Maya civilization — the desperate defense of the once-great trading center and the ritual execution of at least 45 members of its royal court.

An enemy as yet unknown not only wiped out the royal dynasty about AD 800, but systematically eliminated religious and cultural artifacts — in effect, killing the city and leaving it abandoned to the elements, according to new research announced Wednesday.
...
After the siege of Cancuen, cities in the western Maya lowlands in what is now Guatemala were abandoned, most within 20 to 30 years, the researchers said. The displaced populations moved to the east and north, where they eventually depleted local resources and faded away.
...
The new discovery "supports Demarest's view that the Classic Maya civilization collapsed by endemic warfare," said archeologist Heather McKillop of Louisiana State University.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-maya17nov17,0,5217592.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[manic expression]

104. This isn't conclusive

Why would Chichen Itza not be abandoned until 1300? Why was it first abandoned in 900, and then resettled 100 years later?

Why would this have an effect on the entire Mayan world, when it was composed of different city states and not one state?

http://www.crystalinks.com/mayanhistory.html

[AngryAmish]

40. We just get rid of the undesireables

ie the Freepers

[0rganism]

52. Seldom how it works

What usually happens is "we" get rid of some of "them" and "they" get rid of some of "us". Net result is probably about the same, and the population as a whole makes up the difference in a few years.

[T Town Jake]

89. "We just get rid of the undesireables" (Sic)

Utterly astonishing post.

Stormfront, much?

[mb7588a]

43. Famine will be the more likely culprate...

yeah it's sad, but extinction happens. Whether or not it's for a reason is the real bugger of a question now isn't it?

[Lorien]

71. War will come before mass famine

world wars are assured if population growth isn't curbed, because ALL natural resources-including water-will become scare. climate change and deforestation is leading to weather extremes NOW. Species extinction will lead to further environmental collapse, which will result in accelerated climate change, which will cause drought, famine, forest failures, ocean dead zones, and the rapid spread of disease...as each catastrophe occurs, world governments will go to war over what's left. This will happen within most of our lifetimes if we continue to be dishonest with ourselves about overpopulation, deforestation, fossil fuels, and biodiversity loss.

[blindpig]

65. you should read Oryx and Crake

by Margaret Atwood. There's a happy book.

It may be disease, war or starvation as the proximate causes but in the end it comes back to hubris.

The problem is that there is no time. If we had gotten started back in the 60's when we first began to recognize the problem then the developmental solution that many advocate would be feasible. But we didn't and now we are that much more crowded and that much farther from reaching carrying capacity.

As has been stated there are not enough resources on this planet to support the worlds' current population at what we consider middle class levels. If we greatly curtail consumption in the West and redistribute the wealth we may be able to handle that part. How to achieve negative population growth in an egalitarian, democratic manner is a much stickier problem. Yet it must be done or our civilization and much of this planets' biodiversity is doomed.

I fear that only when the writing is on the wall will a significant segment of the population recognize the problem and be willing to act. Then the solutions will be totalitarian, everything that we fear.
And even then, probably too late.

[Nikia]

72. We could substain much larger populations w/ proper planning

I am not sure how this would all work. It might be Facist to mandate this by law. There are densely populated parts of the world though, like New York City, Tokyo, and many European countries. All cities could be built like that or better. We need to build up, not out. We need good public transportation. We need mixed shopping/residential/professional services areas so people can walk where they need to go to meet most of their needs.
Where people don't live can be devoted to naturual areas and efficient agriculture.
Businesses that need space such as heavy manufacturing would still take up spece, but there wouldn't be one story big box stores or office buildings.

[LWolf]

92. But why would we want to?

It makes me shudder. Better city planning for those who live in cities? Absolutely. Continuing to grow the population so that the only choice left is the concrete urban jungle? No thanks.

[Lisa]

73. lower fertility rates are way better than disease, for decreasing pop

And as for war -- we lost more people than ever before in history, in the wars of the 20th century -- and this didn't even make a dent (we still passed the 6 billion mark before 2000).

Even something like AIDS won't have as much impact this century as the fact that women around the world will be having families later (and having fewer kids). Fertility rates are now lower in developing countries, on average, than they were in North America in the middle of the last century. And countries like Canada will soon be looking at below replacement levels (fewer than 2 children per woman). Arguably, this is just as important as stabilizing populations in developing countries, since we consume a lot more per capita.

Peace, education, and decent health care seem to be a lot better as equalizers, when it comes to having a chance at sustainability.

[applegrove]

74. No - trade is. So that people everywhere have a chance to save over

the course of a lifetime - which is when they have 1.7 kids. And for god's sake - let the gays marry you bunch of idiots!

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

76. A forest fire

Every so often a forest fire burns down a forest and the most hearty trees survive. A pandemic is no different, it would be the equivalent of a forest fire, killing off millions and millions, maybe even billions depending on how agressive the virus or disease is. It's a law of biology, the population almost always comes crashing down after centuries of building up.

[T Town Jake]

90. Friedrich Nietzsche, call your office...

(n/t)

[dcfirefighter]

80. NO! a change in economic practices is a hope.

I'm a big fan of henry george, and his modern descendants, the geoists, geo-libertarians, earth-sharers, green taxers, geonomists, etc.

At the end of the 19th century he asked why poverty seemed to grow despite man's advancements in agriculture and technology. The answer is that the wealth built by progress does not accrue to the inventor, the industrialist, or the laborer, but to the landowner. (often individuals play multiple roles).

Without central planning, without dictating where and how people live, he offers a glimpse as to how the human race can exist and prosper whilst treading lightly on earth.

Land has value mostly due the community and public investments that surround it. How much is riverfront property worth in Ecuador? England? Why not recapture that value, and use it for further improvments, or public goods, or even a universal basic income?

For a given level of production, the fewer inputs from the earth, the more must be made from man. Full employment, better wages and working conditions, less extraction and pollution. Each additional person brings additional needs, additional demand, and creates additional value.

The economics of Henry George lead to dense, compact cities, and low transport costs. These economics capture the value created by transit systems, public schools, public safety, and liveable communities.

These economics favor sustainable, low-input, and local agriculture over vast, high-input, commercial chemical agriculture.

These economics eliminate monopoly privelege, encourage innovation and technological progress; they reward initiative and merit, while providing a comfortable life for all.

These economics provide the absolute minimum possible burden on labor. Labor is untaxed, as are the products of labor. Payment for land is made to the community (government?) rather than the previous owner. -go back far enough, and all land titles are based on theft or conquest.

The method, in most countries with established land titles, would be to base property taxes on land value, while exempting building value. Over time, perhaps a generation, other taxes should be shifted to this tax: wage taxes keep people out of work; sales taxes keep people from producing, and out of retail jobs; 'luxury' taxes keep luxury craftspeople out of work; personal property taxes keep producers of personal property out of work.

[WindRavenX]

83. In all likelihood, it's already probably too late

We've probably overshot the Earth's carrying capacity by around 3 billion (and there are some scientists who think that's a conservative estimate); when a population overshoots its carrying capacity for its environment, there is a tremendous killing period as a result of 1)overcrowding and destruction of environment 2)depletion of natural resources dries up and is not longer able to support the current population

It seems to me, and many other environmental biologists and ecologists that I have talked to, that on a whole, the human species has been tremendously lucky with regards to resources on the whole; it will take only a massive feminine (which we are certainly due for) to kill off tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions. And if this feminine lasts, perhaps as a result of climate change, then it will kill more than that, and lower the carrying capacity more permanently.

It is my personal belief that disease will not kill off a large portion of the human population on this planet, but that our resources will fail us, and a mass wave of feminine coupled with a shift in climate will knock off hundreds of millions-1 billion in my lifetime.

The earth is tremendously ill and we have been very very lucky that we have been able to have so many people for so long. But it will not last, that much is certain.

[T Town Jake]

91. The word is "famine," not "feminine"....

...and anyone contemplating it with relish, as you apparently are, is no kind of "progressive" decent people should associate with.

[blindpig]

93. I don't see the "relish".

What WindravenX wrote is within the general consensus of all of the environmental writings that I have read in recent years. That this view is bleak is I'm sure not that poster's preference but is based upon the work of many scientists over the preceeding decades. To deny the overwhelming weight of this accumulated work is to stick ones' fingers in ones' ears and sing "lalala".

[BeFree]

96. Yeah, but 'feminine'? What's up with that? Freudian?

I figure population can double every 18 months. We could be in worse shape, but the shape we are in is pretty damn bad.

I find it rather odd that the fundies who hate 'outsiders' are the same who hate birth-control. Odd. Less birth-control means more 'outsiders' eh?

With a large scale change in our living habits, coupled with minus population growth and a really focused techonology, in 50 years or so, we could resume some sustainability.

Will women quit having babies? Will feminism change population curves? Will we turn from short term profitting toward long term sustainibility? Stay tuned. It's gonna be one hell of a show!

[blindpig]

100. Got me.

Like to know that myself. Otherwise a sound post.

Yeah, the future is not inevitably black but the odds are poor and shrinking. Gods know that I and a lot of other folks would like to be proved wrong. Something better start real soon.

[WindRavenX]

102. Yes, I am contemplating it with relish

:eyes:

Please, where on earth did you get the idea that I was "relishing" the thought of millions of people dying? Seriously, that's just ridiculous.

And I'm sorry about the spelling error-- that was the DU spell check.

[kineneb]

85. and in this corner, the fundie special: 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse

war, famine, disease, death

Does rather make me want to dig out my copy of Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror. My grandma gave it to me in hard cover the year it was published.
Ahhh, history, and what we fail to learn from it.

[Lilith Velkor]

86. Make heterosexuality socially unacceptable.

[No Exit]

101. World population growth has slowed quite a bit. I'm not worried.

"At the same time that the world population growth rate has declined from its peak, the average numberof children per couple has fallen from 4.9 to 2.7 and life expectancy at birth has risen from 56 years to 65
years.... In the less developed regions, couples are currently having about two children less than couples did threedecades ago. Even though fertility has declined to relatively moderate levels in many developing countries, and to
below replacement level in some, a large and growing number of births are occurring annually, due to the
continued growth in the number of women of childbearing age; a legacy of past high fertility levels. In the more
developed regions, fertility declined from 2.4 births per woman during the late 1960s to an historic low of 1.6 for
the current period. In Europe, Northern America and Japan, the current fertility rate is 1.5 births per woman or
below."

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf.

I don't worry about population growth. It pisses me off whenever I read something from the powers-that-be that suggests that we little people should not have as many children as WE see fit to have.

Suppose the population kept growing more and more, with growth not slowing down. (That is not the case, but... suppose.) Eventually perhaps, as you postulate, disease or war would break out and there would be large-scale die-offs. How is that different from the people never having been born in the first place? The people would at least have had a chance to do that thing we ALL treasure: to live.

Suffering? Yes. But when has suffering never been a part of human life? Never.

I am not for irresponsibly popping out children and then not taking care of them. But I refuse to ever let some distant writer, or governmental power, or the guilt trips of such an entity, tell me that I am ruining the world because I have children. That's just crap. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to have themselves sterilized. But don't try to put a guilt trip on people for having offspring.