Pope says to stop breeding like rabbits

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Overpopulation is an outdated concern. Most societies today have birth rates at or near replacement level.

The population growth for most of the world in the next 50 years will be from the aging of populations. There is not a whole lot we can do about that unless we plan on genocide.
However, the most recent stats I saw showed that Africa still has very high birth rates and is expected to continue to do so for the near future. That is a problem we can do something about, and should do something about. Sadly, it is Christians, including the Catholics that are responsible for discouraging better family planning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The population growth for most of the world in the next 50 years will be from the aging of populations. There is not a whole lot we can do about that unless we plan on genocide.
However, the most recent stats I saw showed that Africa still has very high birth rates and is expected to continue to do so for the near future. That is a problem we can do some ...[text shortened]... hristians, including the Catholics that are responsible for discouraging better family planning.

I believe that the current UN forecasts is for the population in Africa to stabilise at around 4 Billion around the turn of the next century. [+/- 1 billion]

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Overpopulation is an outdated concern. Most societies today have birth rates at or near replacement level.

The global population is currently forecast to stabilise at ~11 billion people.

Which is a lot of people to feed, it's possible but will require significant technological
and cultural change to do sustainably without trashing the planet... And preventing
more climate change would really help with that...


But that estimate assumes we continue to die of old age at roughly the same age we do now
~100 [first order appx]

However there is currently a bet on in the relevant fields, not over whether the first
person to live to 1000 years old has been born... But how old they are.

It's possible we might discover that such life extension is impossible, but it's not probable
based on current evidence.

And if it's not just possible, but as I think is likely, it's affordable and economically desirable
for people to use life extending technologies, then that population estimate is WILDLY underestimating
the population growth.

I can't remember off hand the back-of-the-envelope calculations I did as to what the population
would stabilise at if people stopped dying of old age/disease and accidents/murders/ect were
the only causes of death... But the figure was in the low hundreds of billions, an order of mag'
larger than the current forecast.



And if the technology is possible, it will be developed.

At which point, if it's affordable, the only way of stopping people becoming biologically immortal
is to legally mandate that people die when they don't have to... which I don't see going down to well.



So given that it's going to be a challenge to deal with the currently forecast population growth,
and that if we don't stop destroying the planets ecosystem we may well be starting off the next
mass extinction event, and that we currently look to be on the cusp of developing the technology
to allow us to stop dying of old age and disease....

I think it's a tad premature to claim that "Overpopulation is an outdated concern."

Originally posted by googlefudge
I believe that the current UN forecasts is for the population in Africa to stabilise at around 4 Billion around the turn of the next century. [+/- 1 billion]

http://data.unicef.org/gen2030/

Correct. But we will make up 40% of the worlds population rather than the current 16%.
And if nothing is done about it, it will continue to grow.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The global population is currently forecast to stabilise at ~11 billion people.

Which is a lot of people to feed, it's possible but will require significant technological
and cultural change to do sustainably without trashing the planet... And preventing
more climate change would really help with that...


But that estimate assumes we continue ...[text shortened]... sease....

I think it's a tad premature to claim that "Overpopulation is an outdated concern."

We already produce more than enough food for 11 billion people. Yes, there are environmental concerns, but those are not significantly different when there are 11 billion people compared to when there are 7 billion.

"Life-extending technologies" sounds like something from a bad Sci-Fi movie.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
We already produce more than enough food for 11 billion people. Yes, there are environmental concerns, but those are not significantly different when there are 11 billion people compared to when there are 7 billion.

"Life-extending technologies" sounds like something from a bad Sci-Fi movie.

They may sound like bad sci-fi to you... but so at one point did human flight ... ect ect.


The question is not what it 'sounds like' but whether or not we have reasonable reasons
for supposing that it's possible and achievable.

The experts in the field say yes.

For example, we are close [say next 20 ish years] to being able to grow/print replacements
for every organ in the body [excluding the brain]... Which by extension means we are close
to being able to grow entire new bodies into which we could transplant our brains.

Which would mean that if we can learn to keep brains healthy and functioning then to be
biologically immortal would only require transplanting our brains into a new body every 40~50
years. Done on a mass scale this is likely to be economically viable and cheaper than the
escalating costs of medical care we have as we age today.
Particularly since people would be essentially young fit and healthy [physically] for ever and
thus wont need to retire due to old age, and thus keeping people alive allows them to keep
paying into their health insurance policies.


Now this may [well] not be how we do it, and we might discover some unforeseen roadblock that
prevents us from achieving this... But the current belief in the field is that no such insurmountable
roadblock exists.

It thus seems reasonable to count this as a plausible, or even probable, future.


Also, as it currently stands, we are making enough food... but we are destroying the soil and
draining worlds aquifers to do it. Without new technology/practices our current production is
not sustainable... and that's even without global warming which is predicted to reduce worldwide
food production [all other things being equal].

So still a problem.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Also, as it currently stands, we are making enough food... but we are destroying the soil and
draining worlds aquifers to do it. Without new technology/practices our current production is
not sustainable... and that's even without global warming which is predicted to reduce worldwide
food production [all other things being equal].

Africa still has plenty of undeveloped land. I estimate that Zambia for example can comfortably produce 10 times the amount of food it does now with no new technology. The only reason we do not do so, is there is no export market for the produce.
I agree with KazetNagorra that 11 billion is not a big problem. Its how they live that matters. A much higher percentage of people will live in cities which is much more efficient and much less damaging to the environment. If we can only get the US to stop promoting suburban living, then we will cut the problems in half.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Africa still has plenty of undeveloped land. I estimate that Zambia for example can comfortably produce 10 times the amount of food it does now with no new technology. The only reason we do not do so, is there is no export market for the produce.
I agree with KazetNagorra that 11 billion is not a big problem. Its how they live that matters. A much highe ...[text shortened]... we can only get the US to stop promoting suburban living, then we will cut the problems in half.

I agree it's possible, and I completely concur that [as much as I personally don't like living
in them] cities are the way to go [if designed right, again America sucks at this]

However people are currently forecasting a significant probability that we are at the start
of a mass extinction in the oceans, [with most species being replaced by massive swarms
of jellyfish which seem to like the new conditions we are creating, but do not to my knowledge
make good food.] if we don't immediately and rapidly curtail CO2 emissions, which we don't
currently look set to do.

California, a huge food producer is busy turning into barren dessert.

Ect ect...

I agree that feeding 11 billion is doable... I just quibble with the suggestion that just because
it's doable that it's easy. We produce enough to comfortably feed all 7 billion alive today...
yet millions are starving.

Heck we have people homeless and starving in rich western democracies.


We've known how to produce all our electricity without producing CO2 for decades as well...
we still aren't making great strides towards doing so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree that feeding 11 billion is doable... I just quibble with the suggestion that just because it's doable that it's easy. We produce enough to comfortably feed all 7 billion alive today... yet millions are starving.

They are not starving because of the number 7 billion. They were starving back when it was 4 billion.
As I have already pointed out, Zambia produces just enough food for itself and no more, simply because exporting food is not economically viable. (we are a land locked nation with a rather poor transport system and fewer farm subsidies than much of the rest of the world.)

Zambians still starve, but not due to lack of available food - there is always food in the shops.

Heck we have people homeless and starving in rich western democracies.
Exactly. Do you have food shortages? If you cut your population by half, would they stop starving?

We've known how to produce all our electricity without producing CO2 for decades as well...
we still aren't making great strides towards doing so.
It has only recently become economically beneficial to do so. However, the change is likely to completely upset the established power producers, so there is significant political pressure against it.
In addition, there are simply the logistics of getting all the new factories built etc. when policy changes in favor of wind or solar, there is a lag of a year or two before all the businesses are set up to support the new policies.

Here in SA, there is a major power shortage (resulting in regular blackouts). As a result, there is a policy to encourage solar water heaters, a cost effective currently existing technology that cuts most peoples electricity bill by 20%-30%. However, missteps in policy, the time lag to train people, get companies established and educated the populace on the benefits etc means that it is taking time to roll them out country wide. But it is happening.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree it's possible, and I completely concur that [as much as I personally don't like living
in them] cities are the way to go [if designed right, again America sucks at this]

However people are currently forecasting a significant probability that we are at the start
of a mass extinction in the oceans, [i][with most species being replaced by mas ...[text shortened]... ut producing CO2 for decades as well...
we still aren't making great strides towards doing so.

The fact that people are starving and people are homeless has nothing to do with the planet's capability of supporting human life, but with our inability (or unwillingness) to organize ourselves in such a way as to prevent hunger and homelessness. From an environmental perspective, the problem is, as twhitehead pointed out, not the number of people but how much resources they are consuming and pollution they are causing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The fact that people are starving and people are homeless has nothing to do with the planet's capability of supporting human life, but with our inability (or unwillingness) to organize ourselves in such a way as to prevent hunger and homelessness. From an environmental perspective, the problem is, as twhitehead pointed out, not the number of people but how much resources they are consuming and pollution they are causing.

what can the pope know about shagging?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Do you believe God granted you the patience to deal with such simpletons day in and day out?

If I said I did believe that God granted me the unusual patience that I exhibit with such people, I'd run the risk of seeing a cult of personality grow ~ based on me ~ and based on the patience-filled things I say. And I wouldn't want that.

Originally posted by redbadger
what can the pope know about shagging?

If he has access to the internet, then probably more than he will ever let on.

But the thread is not about shagging. Its about deciding how many children to have.

Originally posted by FMF
Surely, his Christian children have been "rounded up" by the U.S. government and taken along with "everything" else?

have they taken his trailer