Posted on 03/04/2002 2:06:32 PM PST by Torie
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The term "overpopulate" is a matter of politics. If all of China had the same political system as the Hong Kong SAR, China's population growth would accelerate AND they would NOT be "overpopulated".
Hong Kong has the highest population density in the world with a per capital standard of living and income comparable to the U.S., and is situated essentially on a rock in the ocean. It also has historically dealt with HUGE waves, along with a steady trickle, of refugees. Its population "problem" is only an issue for its civil engineers and people (I'm not one of them) who simply don't like crowds.
Of course it's entirely probable that their early calls for population limititation has led to people having smaller families.
Assuming that we can maintain the current upward trend in productivity presupposes that we have limitless resources. We do not.
dp/dt=ap-bp^2
where p is the population, dp/dt is the rate of population growth, and a and b are called vital coefficients.
Ecologists have estimated, for humans, that the value of a is 0.029. Population stats can be used to solve for b, which is about 2.941E-12. It can be shown that the population growth will reach zero (dp/dt=0) when the population reaches 9.86 billion, which is in good agreement with this article.
This statement is often made to alarm and only does so because of the assumption that the world is somewhere near the end of its resources. This specious alarmist argument has been made for over a century and the future has always not only proven it false but shown the reverse to be true.
Your other statement (with the examples of "increasing salinity of irrigated farmland, depletion of aquifers") again presupposes that these are problems that either will be insurmountable or cause some great disharmony or sacrifice before they are solved, and usually are tagged with the only legitimate solution being population control. Again, you should show some humility in the face of history.
Accounting for the world's land surface area, the amount of arable land, water supplies, increasing urbanization of populations, renewable land and ocean resources, and conservative projections in existing technologies and resource discoveries it is hard to say that the world cannot comfortably sustain 100 or even 200 billion people.
In light of the painless altering of fecundity seen in developed nations, as well as a knowledge of basic ecological growth models (and the, albeit weak, evidence in this UN report), it is hard to say that the world's population must even attain such levels or that it would take enormous sacrifice or require conscious intervention to prevent it.
In short, the whole population control cult is dependent upon not just worst-case scenarios but extreme myopia to sustain its arguments, and taps into misguided fear and the human desire to control others for its popular support.
You are partially right in mentioning China and India. Backwards countries that become industrialized have not fit this model very well because a more efficient use of resources will affect the parameters. However China has instituted severe population control policies that are offsetting the industrialization of these two countries; they probably wash each other out, and the global population prediction is still valid.
Look, either your formula is accurate or it isn't. Either I am right or I am wrong. Either your faith in the forumula is justified or it isn't.
You lofted the forumula. I observed that it isn't accurate due to the examples given. You stated, "Yes but." Sorry, nice try.
If you want to model the global population, you need to use the parameters that are appropriate for the global population. If you wish to narrow down to a specific set of a population, then a set of parameters that are specific to that set of circumstances will apply.
The model is a biological model. It does not reflect the affect of extreme government policies. And the parameters can change for changes in technology. If I were to develop a cheap and efficient water purifier that could be distributed to all families in Calcutta, the population there would increase in a manner that could not be predicted with the old set of parameters. The population would increase until another factor limits population growth (such as food supplies). However, even a drastic change in technology will not affect the parameters too much. Likewise, if China decides to kill all children after the first one, the model will not reflect this.
If Verhulst's growth model was valid, why didn't the United Nations take it into consideration in the 1970s, when it was jumping up and down telling us the sky was falling? The reason is that the formula didn't hold weight back then. I don't think it does now. What use is it if you have to continually insert qualifiers.
What you are basicly saying is that it's a fabulous model as long as we can insert the "unknown factor" whenever it doesn't reflect reality. Here's the unkown factor for the US. Here's the unknown factor for China. Here's the unkown factor for Europe. Here's the unknown factor for the Middle-East. And here's the multi-faceted unkown factor for the planet. I have a rather strong suspicion that this formula is always going to be recognized by some people as extremely accurate after the fact, but will never be the stuff of an accurate predictor.
In one of my replies I made the observation that this planet's populace is still increasing at the rate of 100 million per year. In eighteen years that will be 1.8 billion. Add 1.8 billion to 6.2 billion and you have 8 billion. That's reality. I don't think the Verhulst growth model has exhibited it's reliability.
another problem solved! let's see.....world population, the homeless....
You can't be serious. I actually had to look to see if you were a newbie. You are not. You've been here a long time, so you must know that the UN is completely motivated by politics. The UN has NOT been using this model, they have been using a simplistic exponential growth model (which has been my unstated point all along). That way they could inflate their population projections so that they can "save the world" with their socialist environmental, economic and anti-Christian population control policies. And the left has used "population explosion" as a justification for any and all of their pet projects. It has been the mathematicians and biologists who have been jumping up and down trying to tell us that the UN is wrong. Remember Paul Ehrlich? He was a California pseudo-scientist that was trying to sell a lot of books and make a name for himself. Using the UN exponential growth models, he stated in 1970 that the world population would be so great by 2000 that society wouldn't be able to function
What you are basicly saying is that it's a fabulous model as long as we can insert the "unknown factor" whenever it doesn't reflect reality.
No, these are factors applied to the specific population set that is of interest. In 1845, Verhulst predicted the 1930 population of his home country, France, to within a percent. In 1920 Pearl and Reed (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1920, p275) predicted the 1950 population of the United States to within 1.1% accuracy, despite unforseen waves of immigration and several major wars.
In one of my replies I made the observation that this planet's populace is still increasing at the rate of 100 million per year. In eighteen years that will be 1.8 billion. Add 1.8 billion to 6.2 billion and you have 8 billion. That's reality.
No, that's the crap that the UN has been selling for decades, and you've bought it hook-line-and-sinker, like the rest of the sheeple. If you'd stop being so stubborn, you'd free yourself from the need for a socialist UN "savior". The linear model that you suggest is only accurate for very short term projections, maybe a year or two. You can accurately predict that next year's population will be 100 million more than it is today, but beyond that you would be overestimating badly. It is incredibly pessimistic for long term projections.
You admitted to checking to see if I'm a newbee, but while you were there you evidently didn't check out the graphics right under my inception date.
I provided world population data for thousands of years. You provide a model. In the last twenty years we have added two billion people to the planet, yet you believe it is reasonable to think that in the next fifty we'll only add three billion.
We could keep this round robin up all week. I don't think that would be very productive.
I suppose you think that the world population data I linked was provided as a part of a grand conspiracy by the United Nations. What I really find humorous is that this is the first time I've been refered to as a shill for the United Nations. I think that reflects on the power of your arguements. But then I'm just a shill for the UN and all.
Why don't you wrap it up with a final comment and we'll let it go. Thanks for the comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.