Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 29
Send Topic Print
The Population Debate (Read 182104 times)
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #300 - Jan 1st, 2012 at 11:57pm
 
Ta for that.
Smiley
Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #301 - Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:08am
 
Soren wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 11:12pm:
Emma wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 10:50pm:
I remember remarking to a friend...  that this now generation will be the first to see a fall in life expectancy, despite all our wealth and tech. He was horrified, saying no way. ... the human life expectancy will keep on increasing.. it was inevitable, undeniable. 

I begged to differ- offering reasons such as is illustrated by the prev post. 

Time will tell.! Smiley



Er... that article is about population decline, not life expectancy decline.



Er... that article, was not about life expectancy decline,
it was about the Decline of Demand & the end of Growth driven Economics!


Try to think MORE logically, Soren!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #302 - Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:14am
 
perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:08am:
Soren wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 11:12pm:
Emma wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 10:50pm:
I remember remarking to a friend...  that this now generation will be the first to see a fall in life expectancy, despite all our wealth and tech. He was horrified, saying no way. ... the human life expectancy will keep on increasing.. it was inevitable, undeniable. 

I begged to differ- offering reasons such as is illustrated by the prev post. 

Time will tell.! Smiley



Er... that
article is about population decline
, not life expectancy decline.




Er... that article, was not about life expectancy decline,
it was about the Decline of Demand & the end of Growth driven Economics!


Try to think MORE logically, Soren!



Read more slowly.

That's what I said.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #303 - Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:37am
 
Oh??
where did you say that.?
Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #304 - Jan 2nd, 2012 at 8:18am
 
Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:14am:
perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:08am:
Soren wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 11:12pm:
Emma wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 10:50pm:
I remember remarking to a friend...  that this now generation will be the first to see a fall in life expectancy, despite all our wealth and tech. He was horrified, saying no way. ... the human life expectancy will keep on increasing.. it was inevitable, undeniable. 

I begged to differ- offering reasons such as is illustrated by the prev post. 

Time will tell.! Smiley



Er... that
article is about population decline
, not life expectancy decline.




Er... that article, was not about life expectancy decline,
it was about the Decline of Demand & the end of Growth driven Economics!


Try to think MORE logically, Soren!



Read more slowly.

That's what I said.




You may need to express yourself clearly then, because only you know that!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #305 - Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:17pm
 
Ageing population to limit growth in BRIC countries


BEIJING: A year ago, Catherine Liu employed more than 2,000 people at her five Shanghai luggage-making factories. Now, as the dwindling supply of low-paid young workers forces wages and costs higher, she has 1,200 left.

"Local workers are getting much older," said Liu, owner of Shanghai Worldwide Trading Co. "If you want to train them, they must be young. It's very difficult to survive."

Ageing and shrinking labour pools are also poised to curb expansion across the other so-called BRIC nations that contributed almost half of global growth in the past decade. With fewer youths keeping factories going and more pensioners to support in those markets, the world economy is set to slow, Goldman Sachs says.

The number of people older than 65 in Brazil, Russia, India and China will rise 46% to 295 million by 2020 and to 412 million by 2030, according to UN projections. The pool of 15 to 24-year-olds, the mainstay for factories like Liu's that drove China's boom for three decades, will fall by 61 million by 2030.

As the BRICs slow down, global growth probably will peak at about 4.3% this decade and fall to 3.9% in the 2020s, according a December 7 report by Goldman analysts.

That's prompting fund managers including Mark Mobius to invest in so- called frontier markets such as Nigeria, Vietnam and Argentina, where average annual growth is set to rise to 5.1% this decade, from about 4.3% in the previous 10 years. One of his holdings, Nigeria's Zenith Bank, has risen 11.9% in the past two years, while the MSCI Emerging- Markets Index is down 7.4%.

Top Ten
Goldman Sachs Asset Management Chairman Jim O'Neill, who coined the BRICs acronym a decade ago, said other emerging economies may now be better investments -- especially Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt and Mexico.

"These four countries could be in the top 10 contributors to global GDP this decade, adding well over $2 trillion," London-based O'Neill said in an e-mailed response to questions on Dec. 29. "With large young populations, these countries could become powerful growth stories."

While Goldman started its N-11 fund (GSYIX) in February covering the "Next Eleven" emerging nations to "benefit from superior growth potential," O'Neill said the size of the BRICs economies means they will remain "the most dominant and positive force in the world economy."

Together, Brazil, Russia, India and China account for about 25 percent of world gross domestic product, according to Goldman.

'Demographic Realities'
O'Neill's company predicts that the average annual expansion of the BRIC countries will fall during this decade to 6.9 percent from 7.9 percent in the 10 years to 2009, then drop to 5.3 percent in the 2020s. "In terms of the role of the BRICs in driving global growth, the most dramatic change is behind us," the Goldman analysts, led by Dominic Wilson in London, wrote in a Dec. 7 note.

Already, the demographic volte-face has prompted calls for China to end its one-child policy, which exacerbated the drop in workers since its implementation in 1979; and has forced legislation in Brazil to control.

China Shift
"Financial markets, businesses and policy makers have failed to recognize that demographic realities are creating pressures for slower future growth," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, who has advised the World Bank.

The shift to a society with a dwindling number of employees funding a growing pension bill is most pronounced in China, the world's biggest growth engine last year.

After expanding 2.5 percent a year over the past three decades, China's working-age population has almost stopped growing, said Richard Jackson, director of the Global Aging Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. That pool will contract almost 1 percent a year by the mid-2020s, he said.

The number of 15- to 24-year-olds, who staff the factories that make cheap clothes, toys and electronics, will fall by almost 62 million, to 164 million, in the 15 years through 2025, UN projections show. Meanwhile, those over 65 will rise 78 percent to 195 million.

More Children Needed
The positive contribution that came from an expanding workforce in China will turn negative in 2013, wiping at least half a percentage point off the potential annual growth rate, according to Wang Feng, a director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy in Beijing.

"China's shooting itself in the foot" with the one-child policy, said Wang. "It needs to think of ways to encourage young couples to have more children."

The shortage of labor has left employers such as Shanghai Worldwide's Liu with a conundrum. Moving production to a country like Vietnam where wages are lower is "too complicated" for a small company like hers, with $10 million in annual sales. And relocating to lower-cost regions within China may not help, she said.

Link -
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/ageing-populatio...
==================================
I have some news for Goldman Sucks, Demographics IS one of the major Global Economic factors and Demographics IS one of the reasons why Global Economic Growth will continue to slow, BUT Goldman Sucks are severely & probably deliberately, under estimating the likely impact, particularly when taken in context with the other major factors, which are -
1) Peak Energy
2) Peak Debt
3) Peak Climate
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2012 at 10:39pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #306 - Jan 4th, 2012 at 11:00pm
 
I have to admit relief perceptions_now!! Smiley

Altho I may not 'get' fully the importance of the three other factors that you nominate , I'm glad you ended up refuting  Goldman Sucks. Was getting a mite worried. Grin
Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #307 - Jan 8th, 2012 at 11:14am
 
U.S. Non-Farm Payrolls: The Statistical Illusion Of Jobs


The Employment Report for December 2011 was released today with a glowing press release from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The highlight of the report was the 42,000 courier and messengers jobs created last month and the claim that the unemployment rate fell to 8.5%.

Statistics can easily be manipulated and it is not unknown for political regimes to do so in order to hold on to power (and 2012 is an election year in the U.S.). After all, it is much easier to change a number than to fix the underlying problem the number represents. Fortunately, the BLS publishes a number of statistical tables with each monthly report that can be used to check its calculations.

When the Great Recession began in December 2007, the civilian non-institutional population of the United States was 189,993,000. At that time, the number of people in the U.S. labor force was 125,588,000. As of December 2011, the BLS states that the employment population ratio for the U.S. is 58.5% (0.585). The non-institutional population of the U.S. was reported at 193,682,000 or 3,689,000 higher than it was in December 2007. The labor force in December 2007 was 125,334,000 and multiplying the increase in the U.S. population in the intervening four years by the employment population ratio indicates that the labor force should have increased by 2,158,000 to 127,492,000. However, the BLS reports the U.S. labor force last month was 124,114,000. More than three million people are missing from its figures.

The smaller the labor force is, the better the headline unemployment rate becomes. The BLS claims these 3 million plus people left the labor force and this justifies purging them from the statistics. There is a problem with their line of reasoning, however. Large numbers of people only leave a labor force during periods of severe economic distress. It does not happen during economic recovery. It does not indicate an employment situation that is improving. Yet, the BLS produces numbers showing things are getting better when this happens. This violates the first rule of statistics - the results must reflect reality. The BLS numbers do not.

Dividing the number of employed in December 2011 by the size of the labor force that should exist based on the population numbers produces an unemployment rate of 9.6%, not 8.5%. This is the headline number that should be reported.

If the BLS wants to insist however that more than three million people have indeed left the labor force (and this has continued in the last year - the size of the labor force in December 2011 is smaller than it was in December 2010), it should also make it clear that this indicates that there has been an ongoing recession and no economic recovery has taken place. Both can't happen at the same time, except for a brief period. Either the economic recovery story is a lie or there hasn't been a shrinking labor force.

If you think about it, the term jobless recovery makes as much sense as tall midget or genius moron.

What is keeping the U.S. economy from getting worse is the unprecedented budget deficits that the U.S. is running. If you spend an extra $1.3 trillion dollars that you don't have as the U.S. did in 2011, this will certainly stimulate the economy in the short-term since much of this money winds up in consumer pockets and they spend it.

Link -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/317954-u-s-non-farm-payrolls-the-statistical-ill...
=================================
The numbers that really matter -
1) Total Population.
2) Total Employed. 
3) The ratio between 1 & 2.

The above 3 figures are the real indicators of the health or otherwise of not only the jobs market, but to a degree, the Economy as a whole!

The ripple effect spreading out from these numbers affects many issues, such as the Demand for Goods & Services, whether the level of Taxes raised is sufficient.


In looking at 2 and the ratio between 2 & 1, special consideration should be given to the actual & possible effects of the current & future retirements of the Baby Boomer generation, due to the massive numbers involve, which will average some 10,000 per day, over the next 2 decades in the USA. This Boomer effect will also be applicable in most other countries, around the world.

Whilst the Unemployment figures obviously matter, particularly at a personal level, they will not necessarily be a good indicator of the overall health of the jobs market or of the Economy as a whole, particularly on a monthly basis, where figures can be skewed by seasonal or other factors and the effects of Boomer retirements!

The net Growth in 1 (Population) is slowing and will continue to slow, as birth rates continue their multi decade decline, as immigration slows & possibly goes into reverse with slowing job opportunities and finally as the Boomer generation age, then die in ever increasing numbers over the next 20 years.

The Total Employed has already gone into reverse, in the USA & some European countries, notwithstanding that the Total Population levels in most countries has still been increasing, albeit at a slower rate than previously.

The ratio between Total Employment & Total Population levels has also been in Decline and that is likely to continue, as massive numbers of Baby Boomers move into retirement, thus allowing possible reductions in the Unemployment ratio's, unless the Economy deteriorates further, which is also likely, as Demand for all sorts of Goods & Services falls, as Boomers reign in spending funds they "discover" they don't have.

All of which will greatly exacerbate government Tax Revenue & Debt situations!

But bear in mind, we didn't yet raise the effects of the other major Economic influences on the "new Economy", which are -
1) Peak Energy
2) Peak Debt
3) Peak Climate 

So, welcome to the "New Economy"?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #308 - Jan 10th, 2012 at 11:22pm
 
Population: The Elephant in the Room; Peak Oil Implications on Population Growth; What Level of Human Population is Sustainable?


"In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder." says Professor Stephen Hawking as reported by Edward Morgan in Looking at the New Demography.


Suffice to say the rate of population growth will not continue, and Morgan makes the case we are already in stage 5 of
The Demographic Transition Model
...

Peak Oil Implications on Population Growth

Whereas Morgan presents a relatively benign view of things, even wondering if there are ways to reverse stage 5 decline, Paul Chefurka in Population: The Elephant in the Room sees things quite differently, primarily because of oil usage.

Each of the global problems we face today is the result of too many people using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing. The true danger posed by our exploding population is not our absolute numbers but the inability of our environment to cope with so many of us doing what we do.

It is becoming clearer every day, as crises like global warming, water, soil and food depletion, biodiversity loss and the degradation of our oceans constantly worsen, that the human situation is not sustainable. Bringing about a sustainable balance between ourselves and the planet we depend on will require us, in very short order, to reduce our population, our level of activity, or both. One of the questions that comes up repeatedly in discussions of population is, "What level of human population is sustainable?"

Oil first entered general use around 1900 when the global population was about 1.6 billion. Since then the population has quadrupled. When we look at oil production overlaid on the population growth curve we can see a very suggestive correspondence:
...

A closer look at the two curves from 1900 to the 2005 reinforces the impression of a close correlation:
...

The first questions everyone one asks when they accept the concept of Peak Oil is, "When is it going to happen?" and "How fast is the decline going to be?"

The steepness of the post-peak decline is open to more debate than the timing of the peak itself. There seems to be general agreement that the decline will start off very slowly, and will increase gradually as more and more oil fields enter decline and fewer replacement fields are brought on line. The decline will eventually flatten out, due both to the difficulty of extracting the last oil from a field as well as the reduction in demand brought about by high prices and economic slowdown.

The post-peak decline rate could be flattened out if we discover new oil to replace the oil we're using. Unfortunately our consumption is outpacing our new discoveries by a rate of 5 to 1. to make matters worse, it appears that we have probably already discovered about 95% of all the conventional crude oil on the planet.

A full picture of the oil age is given in the graph below. This model incorporates actual production figures up to 2005 and my best estimate of a reasonable shape for the decline curve. It also incorporates my belief that the peak is happening as we speak.
...

In ecology, overshoot is said to have occurred when a population's consumption exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment, as illustrated in this graphic:
Overshoot
...

Populations in serious overshoot always decline. This is seen in wine vats when the yeast cells die after consuming all the sugar from the grapes and bathing themselves in their own poisonous alcoholic wastes. It's seen in predator-prey relations in the animal world, where the depletion of the prey species results in a die-back of the predators. Actually, it's a bit worse than that. The population may actually fall to a lower level than was sustainable before the overshoot. The reason is that unsustainable consumption while in overshoot allowed the species to use more non-renewable resources and to further poison their environment with excessive wastes.

In the case of humanity, our use of oil has allowed us to perform prodigious feats of resource extraction and waste production that would simply have been inconceivable before the oil age. If our oil supply declined, the lower available energy might be insufficient to let us extract and use the lower grade resources that remain. A similar case can be made for a lessened ability to deal with wastes in our environment.

The Cost
The human cost of such an involuntary population rebalancing is, of course, horrific. Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only six years.

Given this, it's not hard to see why population control is the untouchable elephant in the room - the problem we're in is simply too big for humane or even rational solutions. It's also not hard to see why some people are beginning to grasp the inevitability of a human die-off.

UN Population Projections
Let's put aside the really grim projections and simply ponder the "low population track" in the following charts of population projections from the UN.
...

Demographic and Economic Questions
1. Is that low UN track that unbelievable? If not, what if the starting point is now, not 2040?
2. Who is going to pay the medical costs of all the retirees in the developed-world if people live longer and the population simply stagnates?
3. Where are the energy resources going to come from if the population keeps growing instead?
4. Where are the energy needs of China alone going to come from at the current rate of China's economic growth regardless of whether the Chinese population grows or not?

Those who think we are going to "grow" our way out the the current global economic mess better have good answers for the questions in points number one and three above.

Problem number two is a huge problem in Japan right now. Thee US will face the same problem not too far down the road.

Those who suggest immigration and population growth is the solution to problem number two better have an answer to question number three while also explaining how immigration and population growth is nothing more than a can-kicking exercise.

The China problem is right here, right now. Peak oil all but ensures China's growth rate is going to plunge in the not too distant future, there is going to be a huge global showdown over oil supplies with China the winner, or a cheap easy to produce means of renewable energy is found in the next five years?


Link -
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/01/population-elephant-in-room-p...
===============================
Dilemma's, the world is full of Dilemma's!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #309 - Jan 11th, 2012 at 1:18am
 
perceptions_now wrote on Jan 10th, 2012 at 11:22pm:
Population: The Elephant in the Room; Peak Oil Implications on Population Growth; What Level of Human Population is Sustainable?


"In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder." says Professor Stephen Hawking as reported by Edward Morgan in Looking at the New Demography.


Suffice to say the rate of population growth will not continue, and Morgan makes the case we are already in stage 5 of
The Demographic Transition Model
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uYtsMNrk-zA/TwurQ9fc8hI/AAAAAAAAN0Y/65ParjjYGq4/s1600/...

Peak Oil Implications on Population Growth

Whereas Morgan presents a relatively benign view of things, even wondering if there are ways to reverse stage 5 decline, Paul Chefurka in Population: The Elephant in the Room sees things quite differently, primarily because of oil usage.

Each of the global problems we face today is the result of too many people using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing. The true danger posed by our exploding population is not our absolute numbers but the inability of our environment to cope with so many of us doing what we do.

It is becoming clearer every day, as crises like global warming, water, soil and food depletion, biodiversity loss and the degradation of our oceans constantly worsen, that the human situation is not sustainable. Bringing about a sustainable balance between ourselves and the planet we depend on will require us, in very short order, to reduce our population, our level of activity, or both. One of the questions that comes up repeatedly in discussions of population is, "What level of human population is sustainable?"

Oil first entered general use around 1900 when the global population was about 1.6 billion. Since then the population has quadrupled. When we look at oil production overlaid on the population growth curve we can see a very suggestive correspondence:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ETz6cztVndE/TwFUwF3YapI/AAAAAAAANsc/X-3XIHq572k/s400/p...

A closer look at the two curves from 1900 to the 2005 reinforces the impression of a close correlation:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WOhUdvvK1cY/TwFVg3xcnOI/AAAAAAAANso/IUPBbkp-e8c/s400/p...

The first questions everyone one asks when they accept the concept of Peak Oil is, "When is it going to happen?" and "How fast is the decline going to be?"

The steepness of the post-peak decline is open to more debate than the timing of the peak itself. There seems to be general agreement that the decline will start off very slowly, and will increase gradually as more and more oil fields enter decline and fewer replacement fields are brought on line. The decline will eventually flatten out, due both to the difficulty of extracting the last oil from a field as well as the reduction in demand brought about by high prices and economic slowdown.

The post-peak decline rate could be flattened out if we discover new oil to replace the oil we're using. Unfortunately our consumption is outpacing our new discoveries by a rate of 5 to 1. to make matters worse, it appears that we have probably already discovered about 95% of all the conventional crude oil on the planet.

A full picture of the oil age is given in the graph below. This model incorporates actual production figures up to 2005 and my best estimate of a reasonable shape for the decline curve. It also incorporates my belief that the peak is happening as we speak.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mbnXJZE-wXU/TwFXjcO35VI/AAAAAAAANs0/V7-xzIb_iXg/s400/p...

In ecology, overshoot is said to have occurred when a population's consumption exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment, as illustrated in this graphic:
Overshoot
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GnIDyOoGKL8/TwuyvoVfPyI/AAAAAAAAN0k/K7AeiAhj39E/s400/o...

Populations in serious overshoot always decline. This is seen in wine vats when the yeast cells die after consuming all the sugar from the grapes and bathing themselves in their own poisonous alcoholic wastes. It's seen in predator-prey relations in the animal world, where the depletion of the prey species results in a die-back of the predators. Actually, it's a bit worse than that. The population may actually fall to a lower level than was sustainable before the overshoot. The reason is that unsustainable consumption while in overshoot allowed the species to use more non-renewable resources and to further poison their environment with excessive wastes.

In the case of humanity, our use of oil has allowed us to perform prodigious feats of resource extraction and waste production that would simply have been inconceivable before the oil age. If our oil supply declined, the lower available energy might be insufficient to let us extract and use the lower grade resources that remain. A similar case can be made for a lessened ability to deal with wastes in our environment.

The Cost
The human cost of such an involuntary population rebalancing is, of course, horrific. Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only six years.
Dilemma's, the world is full of Dilemma's!



it's not hard to see why population control is the untouchable elephant in the room - the problem we're in is simply too big for humane or even rational solutions. It's also not hard to see why some people are beginning to grasp the inevitability of a human die-off.


FINALLY  !  someone - you perceptions_now,  has stated in an assimilable form, something I guess I've 'understood'.. for a long time now.
Non-viable.

Your graphs are helpful in understanding your position on the global situation , .. and  well done ... commendations.!! I find myself in pretty full agreement with your projections....  and FYI  I am not a big viewer of Catastrophe movies.

They are never as good as the books anyway.!!

"All Flesh is Grass" 
Clifford D Simak.


Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #310 - Jan 11th, 2012 at 8:40am
 
Emma wrote on Jan 11th, 2012 at 1:18am:
it's not hard to see why population control is the untouchable elephant in the room - the problem we're in is simply too big for humane or even rational solutions. It's also not hard to see why some people are beginning to grasp the inevitability of a human die-off.


FINALLY  !  someone - you perceptions_now,  has stated in an assimilable form, something I guess I've 'understood'.. for a long time now.
Non-viable.

Your graphs are helpful in understanding your position on the global situation , .. and  well done ... commendations.!! I find myself in pretty full agreement with your projections....  and
FYI  I am not a big viewer of Catastrophe movies
.

They are never as good as the books anyway.!!

"All Flesh is Grass" 
Clifford D Simak.




Well, I've certainly seen some good Catastrophe/Disaster movies, but I've also seen a good range of the other types of movies.

I recent saw War Horse, it's definitely not a Catastrophe/Disaster movie, but I can reccommend it!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #311 - Jan 11th, 2012 at 10:11pm
 
It does look like an excellent movie in the shorts I've seen..etc. Smiley

I reckon I'd need a whole box of tissues.!@!!
Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #312 - Jan 30th, 2012 at 11:37pm
 
Japan's population to shrink two thirds


JAPAN'S population is expected to shrink to a third of its size over the next century, with the average woman living to over 90 within 50 years.

A government report says the population will decline from 127.7 million to 86.7 million by 2060 and tumble again to 42.9 million by 2110 "if conditions remain unchanged".

The projections by the ministry's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research forecast that Japanese women would on average have just 1.35 babies, well below the replacement rate, within 50 years.

The report, which was released today, said last year's earthquake and tsunami in northeastern Japan hit average life expectancy, but the figure was expected to continue its upward trend.

Japan's life expectancy - one of the highest in the world - is expected to rise from 86.39 years in 2010 to 90.93 years in 2060 for women and from 79.64 years to 84.19 years for men.

Japan's population has been declining as many young people have put off starting families, seeing it as a burden on their lifestyles and careers. A slow economy has also discouraged young people from having babies.

Link-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/japans-population-to-shrink-two-thirds/st...
================================
A few observations -
1) I don't see conditions remaining unchanged.
I would see conditions becoming more conducive to a lower, rather than higher Population, not just in Japan but in most countries.
2) The effects on a Demand driven Economy, in Japan & worldwide, will be enormous.
3) Eventually, after the 100 years or so referred to, the reduced Populations in Japan & elsewhere, will actually & eventually prove to be beneficial, as a continuation of the Population explosion of the last 100 years would suck to world dry of its Natural Resources, in particular its Energy Resources, such as Oil, Coal & Gas!
4) It may also be the only way to reduce Carbon levels and possibly restrain the Global Climate from completely tipping over the edge?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 30th, 2012 at 11:43pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #313 - Jan 31st, 2012 at 2:00am
 
I tend to agree with you perceptions_now.
The expected trends in population and life expectancy are too optimistic,  based on old data,  IMO. I think  my views are valid,  ... as a long time but distant observer of what goes on..  I see no rosy future .....  not until massive population decreases have had time to bite.

Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Population Debate
Reply #314 - Feb 1st, 2012 at 11:00pm
 
Is a Reduction in Population Numbers the only Sustainable Solution?

By. Gail Tverberg

In a recent post, I talked about why we may be reaching Limits to Growth of the type foretold in the 1972 book Limits to Growth. I would like to explain some additional reasons now.
...

In my earlier post, I talked about how rising oil prices are associated with rising food prices, and how these high prices can make it harder for borrowers to repay their loans, as is now happening in Europe. These same problems can lead to a contraction of credit availability. A contraction in credit availability can be doubly problematic: it can lead to a cutback in demand because buyers cannot afford goods using oil, such as new cars, and it can lead to a drop in financing for industrial uses, including expanded oil drilling. All of these issues may lead to contraction of the type expected in Limits to Growth. US governmental debt limit problems and European debt defaults are also outcomes of the type expected with rising oil prices.

In this post, I would like to discuss some other basic issues that seem to be associated with Limits to Growth, and that may eventually lead to an abrupt downturn or collapse.

Limits to Growth: More Basic Issues

1. The over-use of resources by humans seems to be of very-long standing origin, dating to the time-period 100,000 BC when there were fewer than 100,000 people on earth. Capitalism today is an extension of this long-term pattern.

2. World systems often seem to work as a gradual build-up of forces followed by a cataclysmic release. Examples include earthquakes and hurricanes. A similar pattern may happen with the Limits to Growth that we seem to be reaching.

3. The extent to which humans can gather resources for their own use depends on their geographical reach. This reach has gradually grown through inventions such as ships, through the settling of new lands and colonialism, and most recently through international globalization. Globalization is necessarily the end of this growth.

4. Globalization sows the seeds of its own demise because factory workers are effectively forced to compete for wages with workers from around the world.

5. In the normal scheme of things, world systems would rest and regroup once resources reach some sort of crisis point, defined by Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. Soils would build up again; aquifers would refresh; climate would reach a new equilibrium; and a different group of plants and animals would become dominant. Oil and gas supplies might even be rebuilt, over millions of years. It is not clear that humans will be part of the new world order, however.

Long-Term Overuse of Resources
Over the past 100,000 years, man’s record of sustainably using natural resources has been poor. Humans differ from other primates because of their relatively larger brain size, but humans have not used this intelligence to preserve the environment.

There have been five periods in the history of the world in which large numbers of species have died off. These are sometimes called “mass extinctions“. According to Niles Eldridge, the Sixth Extinction is occurring now:

• Phase One began when the first modern humans began to disperse to different parts of the world about 100,000 years ago.

• Phase Two began about 10,000 years ago when humans turned to agriculture.

According to Eldridge, humans have been like bulls in a China shop. They disrupted ecosystems by overhunting game species and perhaps also by spreading disease organisms. Regarding the development of agriculture, he says:

Homo sapiens became the first species to stop living inside local ecosystems. . . . Indeed, to develop agriculture is essentially to declare war on ecosystems – converting land to produce one or two food crops, with all other native plant species all now classified as unwanted “weeds” — and all but a few domesticated species of animals now considered as pests.

The development of fossil fuels ramped up the attack on natural systems further. Fossil fuel could be used for irrigation, and to produce herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer, allowing farmers to choose the crops they preferred to grow. Fossil fuels also enabled large fishing boats to deplete the oceans of large fish.

The final tool man found in his attach on natural ecosystems was debt based financing. While debt had been used for many years, it took on a new role when economists started realizing that greater debt could be used to increase demand for goods. This happens because debt financing gives people money to spend in advance of when it is earned (for example, a car loan allows a person to buy a car that he could not otherwise afford).

Because debt allows people to buy thing that they would not otherwise be able to afford, it has a tendency to raise commodity prices. These higher commodity prices make it economic to extract more marginal resources, such as oil in difficult locations.

Natural systems often operate through a build-up of forces, followed by a cataclysmic release

There are no doubt some natural forces operate at a pretty steady level indefinitely–gravity, for example. But many of the processes we experience are “batch processes”. We remain awake during the day; by evening we become tired, and fall asleep until the next morning. We eat, digest the food, and become hungry again. Movement of earth’s plates gradually builds up forces which are released by an earthquake. When force is released, the change can be quick and dramatic.

Right now, one stress is that of limited oil supply. This is leading to rising oil prices and stress on economies of oil importing countries.
...

The problem is that when limited oil supply is rationed by high oil prices, economic growth slows down, and eventually decreases (Figure 2). When this happens, it becomes much less advantageous to borrow from the future, because the future is no longer better than today. If an economic contraction occurs for very long, the whole debt system can be expected to undergo a major “unwind”.

Logic says the result would be fairly cataclysmic. We recently started seeing the beginning of this unwind with the financial crisis of 2008-2009. We are seeing more of the potential unwind with the problems in Greece and the rest of Europe, and with the US government reaching limits on borrowed debt. Exactly how this will play out is uncertain, but debt defaults in Europe could spread to banks worldwide, in one scenario.

With much less credit available, demand for extracted energy products would fall, because with less debt, people can afford to purchase fewer products that use energy, such as new cars. Prices of oil and oil substitutes will fall, making oil extraction unprofitable in locations where extraction costs are high. The result is not likely to be a slow decline, of the type attributed to M. King Hubbert. Instead, a much more precipitous decline can be expected.
...

We can’t know how our current predicament will turn out. Logic says that the natural system needs to rest and regroup after Limits to Growth are reached, in one way or another. Perhaps there is a “happily ever after” solution that will include a large number of humans. Unfortunately, it is hard to see what that solution might be.

Link -
http://oilprice.com/Finance/the-Economy/Is-a-Reduction-in-Population-Numbers-the...
=================================
Gail Tverberg is a writer and speaker about energy issues. She is especially known for her work with financial issues associated with peak oil.
Gail also writes as Gail the Actuary, for The Oil Drum website.
http://www.theoildrum.com/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 29
Send Topic Print