Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:47am PT
|
It's predicted that the next 50 years will be the most dangerous for the human race.
Hi Jan -- can you elaborate on that? We have developed so many ways to endanger ourselves, and I'm curious about which one(s) you're thinking of here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:52am PT
|
How about a vaccine that would make people impotent after they have produced replacements for themselves.
Impotent?! Was that something of a freudian slip? lol!
How about merely non-fertile? I could go for that.
re: over-population problem
In the future, maybe not too far off, and after a bout or two of malthusian pressure and its uglies, we might just wise up enough to employ the following solution to the over-population problem: post-replacement sterilization (vasectomy, eg, or tubal ligation) in exchange for continued health care credits. What's not to like with this (reasonable) solution given the alternatives. Quid pro quo. Win win.
Ultimately, there's really only two choices when malthusian pressure red lines: fight it out in natural selection terms or manage the reproduction (fairly in some way in the eyes of the community; via "impotence," haha, no, sterilization after replacement)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
|
Ultimately, there's really only two choices when malthusian pressure red lines: fight it out in natural selection terms or manage the reproduction (fairly in some way in the eyes of the community; via "impotence," haha, no, sterilization after replacement)
when I first read this, I read this as TEAMS.
I like the idea of being on the climbers team!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:59pm PT
|
Jan, the issue with first world countries needing more children is contrived. It only seems so, because we have built infrastructure that is dependent upon constant growth.
Hold the calls, we have a winner! The "infrastructure," though, is mostly fiscal, not physical, constructs. Any elaboration probably belongs in the "Republicans" thread.
Good topic, Ken. The hostility toward immunization always amazes me, but then the nature of human risk aversion amazes me too. We worry about outcomes with a miniscule probability (or in the case of almost all immunization, zero established probability), and in the process accept avoidable risk of worse outcomes with a significant probability.
John
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
|
nwo2 makes a point which will most likely determine our fate, that is, while we see that overpopulation is a predictable problem, we have no way of preventing it by our own decisions.
The ecological concept of "carrying capacity" is essentially one of energy conservation, and it is governed by thermodynamics. Biological systems in all their features are not well described by thermodynamics since they represent a non-equilibrium state locally, that is, they scavenge energy to maintain biological order. The atmosphere of the Earth, for instance, is decidedly non-equilibrium (this was Lovelock's insight which eventually lead to the Gaia hypothesis, but starts as a NASA study of "signatures" of life on other planets).
At some point, the energy demands of human life will exceed the ecosystems ability to produce it. This is easiest to see in our fossil fuel use, which we are expending at a very high rate. Interestingly, the alteration of the climate by CO2 emissions due to that fuel use might make the environment unable to support other human energy needs, like food production.
Energy use also requires water, and we are using fossil water resources at an increasingly high rate too. We cannot produce energy without water, it is required in nuclear power plants as well as for crops of plants and animals.
Thermodynamics also limits the efficiencies with which we can utilize these energy resources, so there is a limit to our ability to realize efficiencies, and not only that, but the efficiencies have to be applied to all of the elements of the process. So, for instance, the apparent efficiency of solar-power when we only look at the end use on our roofs is offset by the very inefficient production, distribution, installation, decommissioning and deconstruction steps of the process.
Increased efficiencies and the utilization of local climatic and geophysical "resources" can greatly reduce energy need, but not at an exponential rate, which is how population grows. It is true no matter how slow that rate of growth is, put simply, the more people you have, the more people reproduction you have.
It is a matter of supreme individual liberty that we hold the individual responsible for making their own reproductive choices. It is a central aspect of our behavior that we seek to reproduce. Obviously these two central characters of our being lead to the uncontrolled growth of population. Preserving both of these characters means that the limits to population growth would only the inability of the ecosystem to support that growth.
We can see it coming, it is doubtful that we can do anything about it in an organized manner.
Educating people, giving them choices and letting them decide is probably the only hope. Unfortunately there is an economic stake here, too, with many interests weighing in to insure their ox is not gored in the process. The most rudimentary understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and mathematics is needed to understand the concept of limits and carrying capacity, yet apparently educated people make the most absurd statements in an authoritative manner (especially economists, who are unaware that they are a subfield of ecology).
Allowing people to make choices, especially reproductive choices, goes hand-in-glove with the topic of the OP, the increased ability to successfully raise your offspring to adulthood. That along with access to contraception for both partners makes conception a choice rather than a fate. Obviously there are many social issues at play here, but once again, allowing this to be a matter of individual choice is paramount, freeing the individual from those social constraints has to be a goal.
There is contained here the classic collaboration between the individual and the society in which the individual lives. If there is a "new world order" it is in the fact that our neighborhood actions effect the globe as a whole, the consequences of our choices are borne not just by our community near by, but by the entire planet.
And so we must learn, somehow, to act as a planet.
There are living things on the planet that are also essential for our existence, and them lacking a voice in this debate must be represented by those of us who understand the consequences of our choices on that voiceless, but essential, domain.
At times I am optimistic, but mostly I am pessimistic, about humans rising to this challenge. Lately I have come to view the human condition in terms of the myths given to us from the Greeks, that of Cassandra... our scientific knowledge the gift of prophecy, but in a world not willing to accept that knowledge and act on it. As Cassandra is a figure of the epic tradition and of tragedy, so, fittingly, would this play out in human history.
I'm not saying that "science" should be accepted unthoughtfully, rather all along I've advocated for and aided in educating people on science, in my mind the more people understand the better they are prepared to make those individual decisions that will be required to be made. Science is both an individual and a societal enterprise, and is best performed with all the bits laid bare. But even that is contentious, as the "immunizations debate" illustrates.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 02:32pm PT
|
Ed, a remarkable discussion.
I agree, that we probably do not make these decisions "collectively".
As of right now, we do not have a replacement fertility rate in place. We only continue to grow, due to immigration.
If it were up to me, I think there is a national discussion that needs to take place. Personally, I'd aim for a "replacement" level at this point, and no more. 30 years from now, I'd like to see some shrinkage, but there need to be institutional changes for that to work without chaos in our society.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 02:40pm PT
|
Tami, I think there has been an educational shift in this country that no one understands the meaning of: 60% of college graduates are now women.
When you consider where we were 100 years ago, that is astonishing.
Even with the cultural stigma against women being educated, even more so.
60 of the 100 members of the entering class of my medical school this year are women. I'll grant that mine is progressive, but even so, an amazing advancement. 30 years ago, it was 28 out of 100, and that was considered radical.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:40pm PT
|
especially economists, who are unaware that they are a subfield of ecology
Nice to see you're on board with this.
.....
Oh no...
Life isn't game theory.
Life IS game theory. Meaning that it plays out according to game theory - if not as an economist defines it, then in terms of how an astute ecologist defines it - in terms of game rules, players, strategies (including cooperation, deceit, freeriding, penalty or punishment, teaming up), objectives, moves, player strengths and skills, winning and losing, winners and losers.
Suggest (1) reading NonZero, by Robert Wright, for starters, for a fuller treatment (and not anything in a more traditional vein, esp from an economist or mathematician writing in the abstract); (2) watching Survivor (the reality show) as a most excellent metaphor and microcosm of it.
Humans are cooperative organisms...
Of course. Cooperation is essential to success in the game of life (described by "game theory" in evolutionary eco terms) when played at more complex levels - heart cells to honey bees to humans.
.....
Natural selection TEAMS - might come down to that! :)
|
|
hb81
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:47pm PT
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Watch this video to further understand what Ed has outlined above.
It starts out a bit dry but it's well worth watching the whole thing.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
Ken,
You don't even need to got back 100 years. When I was an undergrad at Berkeley from 1969-73, there were 1.8 males for each female student, and the faculty male-to-female ratio in the departments in which I studied was closer to 99%. Even in law school at UCLA in the late 70's, there were at least twice as many men as women, and the school had to go out of its way to attract those women.
Unfortunately, at the high school where my daughter was teaching, there were still plenty of 14-to-16-year-olds intentionally getting pregnant. The rise in female education has, sad to say, not led to lifestyle changes in that community. Instead it simply expanded the gap between the haves and have nots. How do we reach the sorts of disadvantaged (economically, sociologically, and parentally) students my daughter encounters?
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 04:39pm PT
|
John, we won't do it.
The women will do it, just as they have accomplished what has taken place. It didn't happen because of what men did, it happened because of what women made happen.
Those girls don't trust us, and they shouldn't. They have good reason not to (meaning as a group, not individuals).
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 05:57pm PT
|
Has anyone read Ecoscience by John P Holdren and Paul R Erlich? It has some interesting solutions to population control. I have been trying to upload some pages from the book but they wind up upside down when download it from my Ipad. I'll try it tomorrow when i get home tomorrow, unless you want to try and read it standing on your head.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 06:19pm PT
|
I agree, Ken. I find it interesting to have been an observer of the women's movement over the years. I have no brothers, but I am an older brother of sisters. I have two (grown) daughters and no sons, so I'm not exactly disinterested in this topic.
It was my contention while at Berkeley that the biggest oppressors of women in the world may have been men, but the biggest oppressors of women in the United States were other women. Sad to say, I'm not sure that's changed for the most disadvantaged women. According to my daughter, the high schoolers dealt with were getting their ideas to get pregnant (and the acceptance of such plans) from their female friends and family.
When I was in high school in the 1960's, the segment of the U.S. population with the lowest birthrate was college educated Mexican-Americans. The portion of Fresno County's population with the highest teenage pregnancy rates now are probably Mexican Americans who did not (or will not) graduate from high school, so I'm hoping that you're right about how increased education for women can turn this problem around.
I wouldn't entirely discount the role of men, though. I know I was instrumental in getting my sister into the legal profession, and, as a law professor, encouraged many women to go into areas of the law that were traditionally male bastions, with much success. Ultimately, though, I think the social guidance (and pressure) from other women holds our best hope.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 06:40pm PT
|
I don't think we disagree on any of this, John, although we may come at it from slightly different angles.
I also had the opportunity to get a first-hand look at minority penetration into professions, as well. My classmate was Alan Bakke, so my entire time in professional school was a media zoo. Sad to say, the minorities have not fared as well as the women.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 09:57pm PT
|
From NHK
Japan's health and welfare ministry says it believes the population shrank in 2012 for the 6th year in a row.
The ministry says about 1.03 million people were born in Japan in 2012. It says the number of deaths topped 1.24 million, the second most in the post-war era. The ministry estimates women are having an average of 1.39 children. The ministry officials say the population is expected to continue to age and decline.
In regard to why the populations of Japan and Korea are still declining, I believe the factors are socio-cultural although economics plays a role. Having worked in family planning in Nepal, I can say that socio-cultural factors are always under emphasized by the males in charge of societies and aid programs in favor of economic explanations. Many studies have found that family planning occurs only when women are educated either formally or informally.
In Japan and Korea, we have some of the most densely populated societies on earth, with almost no natural resources and uncertain climates in the form of yearly typhoons which threaten agricultural production. Their modernization was built on exports which are no longer economically competitive so their manufacturing has been shifted to cheap labor countries. Those are the important economic reasons for declining desire for children.
I believe the more important socio-cultural reasons have to do with the liberation of women East Asian style. As a group they are highly educated and economically successful but still live in a society that is dominated by males who show little interest in modernizing social relationships. These tradition bound males are so inflexible that they refuse to change and would rather have a mail order bride from the Phillipines than deal with a modern Japanese or Korean wife. Alternatively many of them continue to live at home, cared for by their mothers and seemingly oblivious to their lonely fate after their mothers pass on.
At first, East Asian women responded by marrying as late as possible and having only one child. Now increasing numbers of them choose not to marry at all or to marry and have no children. The governments respond by upping the child allowance to $2,000 a year which is still inadequate to the real costs of a child, but more importantly, makes the women angry at the idea that their bodies are for sale. American women marched and burned their bras for equality. The East Asian women are quietly pursuing their careers and ignoring marriage and child raising as their form of protest.
Nobody over here talks about ecological reasons for limiting children. That seems to be more of a North American concern. If East Asians have excelled at anything, it is surviving in spite of limited resources. North Americans who have so much, are always talking about scarcity.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 10:09pm PT
|
And in reply to Ghost.
it is thought that the next 50 years will be the most dangerous for the human race because they will see its maximum population expansion. After 2050, looking at current rates, all countries of the world will begin to experience population decline and the total world population will go back down even if there are no catastrophes like world wide epidemics.
As the population heads upward during the next few decades however, the possibility for widespread migrations and wars also increases, in a world armed with nukes. Also large populous societies like India and China have skewed male to female ratios thanks to the cultural preference for sons. Battles over resources and widespread extinctions of animal life on this planet are certain.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2012 - 11:48pm PT
|
Thanks Jan. I thought that was what you meant, but wasn't sure.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
There is nothing to suggest that due to one set of correlations (J curve) that suddenly the well-established negative relationship between higher economic development and declining fertility rates is instantly invalid , resulting in an overall characterization of 'not understood'.
except that there is no explanation other than the correlation, in either case, a major shortcoming of simple economic analysis that does not (or is not capable of) explaining the underlying behavior.
Jan has provided an interesting perspective that presents a picture of how choices are made in the actual setting, not abstracted to economic metrics.
My point is that the well established "negative relationship" is empirical, and as such, the domain over which it can be applied is unknown. Especially problematic as the relationship may have been established before the economic situation could develop to the point where the actual behavior is at variance with said correlation. The Nature paper points out that these inflections in the TFR occurred in 1976 in the US, and with the noisy data, it took time to see the trends. The original "well established negative relationship" was established much earlier than that.
Absent any justification for that relationship it is not surprising that it might fail to describe the current situation. It is a major failure of economic analysis that most avoid finding models that describe behavior that results in the relationship. As I quipped, parenthetically above, economics is just ecology, and if it actually acted like ecological sciences, there may be better descriptions for economic behavior. Being human ecology, economics that is, there is much room for anthropological insight also.
I'm not impressed by the statement that something is "well established" when there is no underlying treatment of the phenomena.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'll act like the attempt to provide a plausible contradiction to the basic assertions of the demographic transition model
explain the model...
and especially how your references above, describing the national character, which is to say mostly about male characters, relate to reproduction which requires understanding male/female relationships and that female character as an important piece of the puzzle
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!