Population bomb: 9 billion march to WWIII

[marmar]

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch


SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Sshh. Don’t tell anyone. But “while you are reading these words, four people will have died from starvation. Most of them children.” Seventeen words. Four deaths. That statistic is from a cover of Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 provocative “Population Bomb.”

By the time you finish this column, another five hundred will die. By starvation. Mostly kids. Dead.

But global population will just keep growing, growing, growing. Why? The math is simple: Today there are more than two births for every death worldwide. One death. Two new babies.

Bomb? Tick-tick-ticking? Or economic bubble? Population growth is a basic assumption hard-wired in traditional economic theory. Unquestioned. Yes, population is our core economic problem. Not a military problem. But the bigger this economic bubble grows, the more we all sink into denial, the closer the point of no return where bubble becomes bomb, where war is the only alternative. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/population-bomb-9-billion-march-to-wwiii-2011-06-28?link=home_carousel

[robcon]

1. Ehrlich and Malthus were wrong. Population is not a problem

As long as technology keeps improving crop yields, Malthus will continue to be disproven. There doesn't seem to be any reduction in the positive impact of science and technology on agriculture.

And there is no firmer statement in social science: as people move up to the middle class, the birth rate declines.

[4dsc]

2. Modern agriculture is not sustainable

Modern agriculture has relied upon cheap and abundant oil sources and when that is no longer the case food production will suffer. Not to mention ag land is being destroyed at far greater rates than ever before.

[robcon]

3. Modern agriculture will continue to improve yields.

The technology will be based on prices of inputs and continuing spread of existing technology. There's a long way to go just for the world to catch up with current technology.

Population is not a problem. There will be fewer and fewer farmers (but perhaps not to the extent of the U.S., where 2% of the population feeds the other 98%, in addition to exporting to other countries) and more and more middle class people. It's not just the yield per acre, but the yield per farmer that will continue to improve.

[marmar]

4. "more and more middle class people"

The rise of the middle class in one locale means the decline of the middle class somewhere else. It's a shell game with no pea. The examples are all around you.

[RKP5637]

5. +1, n/t

[SnakeEyes]

15. This is not true

It's not a zero sum gain. Look at global weath, status, and class improvement from a hundred years ago versus now, continue to go back in time. With technology and innovation comes new desired resources, labor, skills, and knowledge.

[marmar]

16. The world doesn't have enough resources to support a "middle class lifestyle" for everyone.....

It's clear now that middle class, or at least the Western vision of it, is an unsustainable chimera. Everyone is going to have to scale down and come up with a completely different definition of prosperity.

[raccoon]

17. +1. nt

[robcon]

20. Bullshit. The world is doing just fine with the growing middle class across the globe.

China alone has added millions to the middle class.

[marmar]

22. Much of "the world" lives in poverty.....Much of the "the world" has poor access to potable water.

I get the feeling that your definition of "the world" is very limited. So before you call bullshit, quit spewing it.

[robcon]

30. I get that feeling about you.

You seem to believe that the Green Revolution was a mistake, and that high-yield agriculture is only for rich countries.

Let the third world starve. Is that your plan?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. There is going to be less food per person

From a report prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for the World Bank and Asian Development Bank:

People in both the developing and developed worlds will have less to eat by 2050 if climate change is not seriously addressed, though the shortfall will be relatively slight in richer countries. Prices rises and shortages of food will drive down the average calories available:

• The calories available for each person in industrialised nations will fall from 3,450 in 2000 to about 3,200.

• In developing countries overall, the average will fall from 2,696 to 2,410 calories.

• In sub-Saharan Africa, people will on average have only 1,924 calories a day, compared with 2,316 in 2000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/30/food-crisis-malnurtrition-climate-change

And you can't just say "yields will improve" and hope for the best. There are severe water shortages in many agricultural areas of the world. There are limits to what can be forced out of agricultural land.

[BobbyBoring]

32. Yes

While millions of once middle class Americans have joined the ranks of the homeless or working poor. When resources and money start to materialize out of thin air, your argument MAY be valid. Until then..................

[Enthusiast]

6. "Population is not a problem."

I won't call you a 'damn fool'. That would be against the rules.

[LiberalLoner]

7. +1 Denial is not a river in Egypt n/t

[txlibdem]

8. Sorry but he's right: population is not the problem

The problem is unequal distribution of wealth and the theft of natural resources that belong to us all for the benefit of just a few greedy slimeballs.

Earth has enough natural resources. Our current wasteful practices are not sustainable, that much is true. But who am I to say that a child whose only crime is being born in Africa or certain parts of Asia or South America does not deserve to grow up in a safe and comfortable home, eat healthy nutritious food in proper quantity, drink clean water and breathe clean air. We are all the same, we are one. Harm to the poorest or least fortunate lessens us all.

[raccoon]

18. Great post. The average first world citizen uses many times as much resources as the average third

world citizen.

[txlibdem]

28. True. Most of it is wasted

That is the really dumb thing about the "American" lifestyle. If we stop wasting so darn much energy we can have our same lifestyle but at only a fraction of the cost to the planet.

Just one example: electric cars use only 20% of the energy of a gasoline engine car. That means we are wasting 80% right now and we can cut our energy usage to 1/5th of the current amount.

[Gregorian]

26. We are out of natural equilibrium.

Population is always regulated by nature through disease, predation, and a number of things, all of which we have thwarted in an unnatural process.

One can argue whether it's unnatural or not. But one cannot argue that we are not out of equilibrium. It's readily apparent.

The oceans no longer have enough fish to continue fishing in many parts of the planet. Don't tell me that is just a temporary problem that is unrelated to population.

[txlibdem]

29. That has been true since the first village started growing crops, 100,000 years?

We are not subject to the rules of predation and equilibrium by disease. The Bubonic Plague killed 1/3rd of the population of Europe. Look at their population numbers. Do you see any permanent, lasting change? I sure don't. And today you can count the number of Bubonic Plague deaths worldwide on one hand. That is a direct result of our brain power, which for us is 100% natural.

Fish populations are being decimated by the triple threat of the fishing methods used, pollution and other human-caused destruction of the marine environment (ocean acidification due to coal power plants), and global climate change. The trawling nets that these giant fishing vessels use scrape along the bottom of the sea floor, destroying any plant life, corals or other creatures that are a vital part of the life cycle of fish populations. It has nothing to do with population and everything to do with stupidity.

I've heard of some private citizens putting a net across a river and then throwing a stick of dynamite in the water. This nets plenty of fish but it kills all the young fish that would have been ready to catch the next year. There's an old farmer's saying: don't eat your seed corn. In this case, don't kill next year's fish harvest just to get a little extra during this year.

[Gregorian]

39. Que?

Where do I buy tickets to your reality.

[txlibdem]

40. Gregorian wants to know: Where do I buy tickets to your reality

You wrote, "Population is always regulated by nature through disease, predation, and a number of things, all of which we have thwarted in an unnatural process."

And I said that it's been 100,000 years that Mankind has been "out of equilibrium" as you call it in your earlier post. That is now our natural state. We are not Antelope or Zebras. We are the dominant species because of one thing: our brains. All I said in my posts is: LET'S USE THEM.

In your reality, people should be eaten by predators to keep down the "excess population?" I want you to join the rest of Humanity in the REAL reality. I'll give you a ticket to join for free.

[robcon]

21. I would call you a Malthusian jerk, but that would be against the rules

n/t

[GillesDeleuze]

14. and debt per farmer with that new technology.

because shits working out so well for india.

[GillesDeleuze]

13. no. technology and crop yields have nothing to do with

food distribution.

[trekbiker]

19. huh??

cheap oil and technological revolution enabled the enormous increase in crop yields and that enabled the huge population increase over the last 150 years. Modern agriculture could not exist without cheap oil. Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, transportation... all based on cheap oil.

but billions of tons of fossil fuel and the resulting population boom create global climate change, ocean acidification and sea level rise. Add to that China and India's couple billion people about to enter the oil age with cars, appliances, etc. Its an exponential increase and since people are basically like any animal it wont stop until catastrophe brings the population back into balance. The only balance in nature to the human population boom and resource depletion problem is disease and starvation. The only natural predator (other than viruses) of humans are other humans so war is another balancing factor.

[bertman]

24. trekbiker nailed it. Got to love it when someone praises the Chinese middle class

without mentioning the horrendous pollution they are experiencing and now savage droughts that are causing massive crop failures.

Did anyone mention that Saudi Arabia can no longer grow its own grains due to having used up their deep well water supplies. Oh, that's okay. They can water their crops with oil.

[RevStPatrick]

9. Population is not the problem.

The problem is that there are way too many people on the planet for the systems that we have in place to create, distribute, and clean up the waste from our food and other goods.

Basically, capitalism is the problem, and unfortunately, capitalism LOVES war!
If we could come up with a new system, we could feed more people. Until that system became obsolete.
Oh, and for the record? This ain't gonna happen...

[bhikkhu]

11. That's true, but then you're just talking about hunger

You can look at the food supply and say that 10 billion could be fed, if we are able to sustain harvests. Then current population is not the problem, and current food supply is not the problem, but rather inequality and poor distribution. (...though, still, there are only 6 or 7 countries with big food production surpluses, and the rest of the world is dependant - how do you get to equity from there?)

"The Problem" is all the other resources which are under great stress at 7 billion, even with a great deal of deprivation:

Water is the problem - there is not enough clean water to go around - the fight there is between residential, agricultural, and industrial use. That's three corners of a problem where every one is essential to maintaining civilization. And that's also leaving out wildlife, and water is part of the stress leading to the current "Sixth Great Extinction" we are in the midst of.

Energy is the problem - much of human civilization has become dependent on fossil fuels in the past hundred years, and the products produced by fossil fuels. All indications are that there will certainly be less to go around in the future, rather than more. Fossil fuels = comfortable material civilization, when it all boils down, and an increasing population with a decreasing energy supply means less to go around for all. We won't starve in the dark, but we will certainly be poorer and have to work harder.

Climate change is the problem - having frantically pumped the atmosphere full of carbon (and we're still at it as hard as ever) the harvests we have been able to maintain are unlikely to last. Weather patterns will change, reliable water sources will cease, oceans will rise, arable land will have to be abandoned, etc.

...so there's not really a bright future to look forward to. Looking at problems in general, it has been said that there is a level of population where any problem becomes impossible to solve, and there is a level of population where every problem becomes easy to solve.

[xchrom]

10. recommend

[Blue_Tires]

12. kick...

I had a chance to interview Ehrlich a few years back...Fascinating discussion...

[Zoeisright]

23. Population certainly is the fucking problem.

The earth is a closed system. Ever do an experiment with two fruit flies in a bottle? Eventually there are so many fruit flies they all die.

[Gregorian]

25. Please don't talk about population. It's so offensive.

By that I mean, thank you for being brave and standing up and saying what needs to be said.

[anthroman]

27. Yay! Geneticly Modified Food for Everyone!

Even Whole-Foods has caved on GM foods, and no one I talk to there even knows about it!

[robcon]

31. GM foods are a continuation of changes over the last 6-7 thousand years.

Do you know what the precursor of corn (teocinte) looked like before the Mexicans invented agriculture 6-7,000 years ago? Do you know that the plant was changed through intentional genetic selection of plants to improve nutrition, survive droughts and floods and avoid pests? GM just does it faster and more effectively.

Changing plants genetically to improve nutrition and reduce famines are exactly what has allowed humans to grow to 7 billion inhabitants.

[GillesDeleuze]

33. no. GM and selective breeding are two different technologies

[postulater]

36. agree.

[bahrbearian]

35. Lets hear it for Solent Green , Yum Yum

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pscot]

38. Population will not reach 9 billion

We're running as hot as we can to sustain 7 billion. I'll bet a case of Full Sail Pale Ale that in 2075 the population will be less than it is today. A lot less.

[txlibdem]

41. Farming methods will have to change with the times, far too wasteful today

Our glorious "Green Revolution" has achieved increased crop yield, yes, but at what cost? Agriculture in America uses 20% of the fossil fuels consumed by our country (in pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, and transporting crops to market). Our farming methods waste 80% of the water they use, and what is wasted is agricultural runoff, tainted with pesticides, herbicides, and other pathogens --it should be classified as hazardous waste. Modern farming methods require food to be transported hundreds or thousands of miles to the intended market. This means that they cannot wait till the crop is actually ripe: they pick it while it's still green then pump Ethylene gas into the shipping container to artificially change the color to make it "look" ripe. This method does not allow the food to build up the proper amount of nutritious elements that they should have.

Locally grown produce is always better for you than factory farm produce. Organic produce is far better for you because organic farmers do not use pesticides or herbicides --which means there may be a tiny blemish here or there on the skin of an organic fruit or vegetable. Americans need to use their brains at the checkout counter and start thinking of what poisons are contained in the "great looking" produce they buy at the grocery store.

What is the solution to the need for greatly increased crop yield, poor or decreased access to clean water, and the need for healthy food that contains all the nutrition that it should? Greenhouse growing techniques, using hydroponic methods, increase crop yields many times over (up to 4000 times the yield per acre) and use only 5% of the water that dirt farm growing uses. Site these near population centers or on rooftops and the farmer can sell fresh produce to the nearby population --no transportation needed. And the greenhouse growing environment virtually eliminates the need for pesticides and herbicides (only on very rare occasions will they be needed) so the produce you eat will not be a hidden danger to you or your children.