I think I've read somewhere (maybe here on the forums) that discussions only serve to solidify opinions and only rarely cause a change of heart. So that may not even be the point.

So most discussions are probably just for the sake of it.

Just to clarify: I don't disagree with you that there are severe problems in the future, if we continue to do what we are doing, but I just don't think humans can effectively wipe themselves out by anything except radioactivity or a super-deadly virus.

On a related note: Could you comment on my English? Is it obvious I'm not a native speaker?

wow, no, i had no idea... your english is superb!!!

i guess it depends on our definition of wiping ourselves out. If we run out of natural resources before we manage to make sustainable ones that really work, there will end up being a massive population drop, perhaps leaving only those with those cultures that have the ability to be self sufficient without power, and a few others, since we're reliant on power for almost everything in society, including essential things for survival.

If we end up using up all the rainforest, and / or don't pay attention to global warming, the earth could end up uninhabitable for humans completely.

If we pollute all our water sources, and don't find efficient ways of cleaning them or making use of sea water, disease will be rife... and even if we do have ways of cleaning them, that also is going to depend on power, and disease obviously relies on advanced medicine to cure, which relies on power.

There's plenty of ways we could wipe civilisation as we know it without weapons of mass destruction. There are also ways we can avoid doing so, but in general terms, i think we'd do a lot better with a much lower population, and society organised a little more like (doesn't have to be exactly like) those of indiginous populations, so we are part of a balanced ecosystem.

Glad to hear that. : )
I don't get a lot of chances to speak English where I live. This is my first English discussion so I was a little insecure.



Well I think even if we suffer from major disasters like diseases, floods, hurricanes, etc as a result of pollution or exhaustion of natural resources, as long as a minimum number of people remain, maybe a few hundred million, I don't believe technology will be lost. Power will still be freely available even without oil or coal, e.g. from the sun (or nuclear fission). And with less humans, the environment will recover.

And if we manage to retain our technological level with a lower population number, we might finally be able to jump off this rock.

I think if we ignore the upcoming sustainability problems, there will be a violent self regulation process that will reduce population to a sustainable level.

apirx Wrote:Glad to hear that. : )
I don't get a lot of chances to speak English where I live. This is my first English discussion so I was a little insecure.

Very impressive! I had no idea you weren't a native speaker! :O

I think once these problems start affecting people more personally they will force us to change the way we live, so as long as they don't make the environment unlivable they won't threaten the survival of the species. I'm not saying we shouldn't try and sort them out before half the plate is dead though.

well, i think we do mainly agree actually then... i think i was being a little overboard with the DOOM stuff, reading back. We do need to be careful though, and not wait til it affects us drastically.

One thing i wonder about is how we are gonna replace plastic... we use it for soooooo much stuff (even though it's often also horrible for the environment), but obviously, even if we do manage to properly get solar / other renewable clean energy working in time, we can't produce more plastic once oil's run out. Some of it's recyclable, but...

This may not be as big of a problem as it seems. Oil will not really run out, it will just become far too expensive to use it for private transport and the likes. There will still be plenty of oil reserves left, just in reservoirs where it's less economic to produce. Those reserves may be used solely for plastic once driving cars becomes too expensive.

But I guess in the long run a substitute still has to be found.

if plastic isn't cheap, it doesn't really have any value as a product. We make stuff out of it precisely because it's cheap. Oil stocks are finite, so either it becomes so expensive we stop using it, or it runs out, but both pretty much amount to the same thing...

not that i'm against that, plastic / oil sucks. i just wonder what's being considered as an alternative to plastic.

nadiatims Wrote:Please tell me you're not seriously defending the one child policy.

I'm telling you I'm seriously defending the one child policy for its end goal (reduction of people in the future, or at least slowing the growth).

This guy does too (if I remember correctly, I already watched it before IceCream linked to it):

IceCream Wrote:... there's hardly any resource that we're not running out of in the very near future. That puts us at carrying capacity, pretty much.

this is relevent for understanding carrying capacity for humans:

nadiatims Wrote:It basically just contributes to poverty in rural China

There are several reasons for poverty but the main ones are:

1) Population. The Earth has limited resources and because of that, the value of money is limited (the value of money depends on the availability of natural resources). If the population grows, and money (resources) staying finite, means that there is less money to go around per person, and hence poverty. So instead of having $100 for yourself (a farmer), you know have to share the $100 with your, say wife ($50 each). The $100 can support both of you, but each one of you has to have a slight reduction in your living standard. Now let's say you have a child, that's another mouth to feed. So the same $100 now has to support three people and in order for that to happen, each one of you has to take another hit in living standards. I believe this is called PPP (purchasing power per capita). Of course, what the farmer is counting on is for the wife and child to help with the farm. I just see this as an Africa situation: Just perpetually prolonging the cycle of poverty.

2) The hoarding of money by the rich ruling elite. They have an advantage for two reasons:
a) They own the natural resources and the means to production (for their own profit).
b) We live in a system where the more money you already have, the more money you can make. Let's say you, the farmer invests $10,000 (your life savings) in 2011. Let's say at the same time, a businessman invests $1 million (a small fraction of his life savings). The result is this: You gain money, but he gains money at a faster rate. More likely though that inflation (linked directly to finite natural resources) will eat away at your savings while the never-ending bills leave you with no disposable income (for saving) at all. The businessman however, already has all his bills paid off and with plenty of money left over to save, invest and earn money with. Anyway, this point is pretty complicated (and off-topic) and I didn't explain it as well as I should have but I hope you get the general gist of it.

nadiatims Wrote:and messes with demographics and will have all sorts unintended social effects (generations of spoilt children etc).

Nobody cares about demographics except advertisers/marketers and while spoilt selfish children unconcerned with the welfare of others is a valid point, it's more due to culture (though the equal or rather unequal distribution of income is certainly a part of it too, you gotta be selfish if you want to increase your living standard especially in China).

nadiatims Wrote:Birth rates go down as wealth goes up. China doesn't need this policy.

I completely agree. I'm just waiting for that wealth factor to go up (see point 2 above).

nadiatims Wrote:Also earth is nowhere near it's carrying capacity.

At the moment, I'm still undecided on this point.

The Earth's carrying capacity for the human race depends on the availability/quantity of supply of its natural resources.

However, one problem: The natural resources and the technology to harness those resources are controlled by the, I know it sounds like a cliche now, rich ruling elite and their big businesses/corporations (see point 2 above). Their goal is personal profit, not the welfare of the human race.

Some people argue that the human race needs to realise that we are all one (everyone is a human), that despite different languages and cultures, we all have the same needs (food, shelter, friends and family) and once that has been realised, for our minds to transcend national borders, recognising that countries are just lines on a map and that our home is the Earth, not USA etc (unless aliens invade),

Once everyone realises that everyone is a human and not American, Asian, Black, Christian etc (a very hard ask), we can, as a whole, argue that the natural resources should be distributed to everyone in the world based on need and not based on profit.

Well, at least that's their argument, no idea if it can work or not.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:1) Population. The Earth has limited resources and because of that, the value of money is limited (the value of money depends on the availability of natural resources). If the population grows, and money (resources) staying finite, means that there is less money to go around per person, and hence poverty. So instead of having $100 for yourself (a farmer), you know have to share the $100 with your, say wife ($50 each). The $100 can support both of you, but each one of you has to have a slight reduction in your living standard. Now let's say you have a child, that's another mouth to feed. So the same $100 now has to support three people and in order for that to happen, each one of you has to take another hit in living standards. I believe this is called PPP (purchasing power per capita). Of course, what the farmer is counting on is for the wife and child to help with the farm. I just see this as an Africa situation: Just perpetually prolonging the cycle of poverty.

You're completely ignoring the increased productivity (decreased scarcity) that comes with division of labor and trade. Say there is only one monkey in the jungle. Then yes that monkey can eat all the fruit he can manage to find and pick. If more monkeys are introduced then yes they need to share, but they can also divide their labor such that everyone works less hard and achieves a higher standard of living. In other words they become more wealthy, by increasing their productivity. The problem in Africa is that productivity is low meaning basic things become scarce and more costly than they need be. There's all sorts of reasons for this (lack of infrastructure, government corruption, lack of free trade, monopolies etc that hinder development). Africa is not over populated. It's under-productive.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:2) The hoarding of money by the rich ruling elite. They have an advantage for two reasons:
a) They own the natural resources and the means to production (for their own profit).
b) We live in a system where the more money you already have, the more money you can make. Let's say you, the farmer invests $10,000 (your life savings) in 2011. Let's say at the same time, a businessman invests $1 million (a small fraction of his life savings). The result is this: You gain money, but he gains money at a faster rate. More likely though that inflation (linked directly to finite natural resources) will eat away at your savings while the never-ending bills leave you with no disposable income (for saving) at all. The businessman however, already has all his bills paid off and with plenty of money left over to save, invest and earn money with. Anyway, this point is pretty complicated (and off-topic) and I didn't explain it as well as I should have but I hope you get the general gist of it.

When the business man invests 1 million dollars it makes him money only if he invests it in something that provides value to the market, that is contributes to the wealth of everyone. If the business man mal-invests in things that have no value he will lose money. When the rich ruling elite truly truly are accruing wealth without proportionate contribution of value, it's generally because they enjoy monopolistic privileges granted by big government.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Nobody cares about demographics except advertisers/marketers and while spoilt selfish children unconcerned with the welfare of others is a valid point, it's more due to culture (though the equal or rather unequal distribution of income is certainly a part of it too, you gotta be selfish if you want to increase your living standard especially in China).

Actually there is a significant gender imbalance forming in China because there is a preference for male children. There will also be tremendous pressure placed on the only children to support their elderly parents and grandparents (the so-called 4-2-1 problem). China has one of the most rapidly ageing populations on Earth btw.

As long as there are rich people there will be poverty and misery. Being rich should be a criminal offense.

I have no problem with rich people existing, there should be no FILTHY rich people though (meaning at a minimum, no billionaires).

Everyone who drives a car would qualify as filthy rich compared to most of the world.

edit: That's just my opinion, but I believe the poverty in Africa / elsewhere is the main reason for the wealth of the western world.

nadiatims Wrote:You're completely ignoring the increased productivity (decreased scarcity) that comes with division of labor and trade. Say there is only one monkey in the jungle. Then yes that monkey can eat all the fruit he can manage to find and pick.

If productivity is the subject, then there is no doubt what has contributed to the world's productivity: technology.

The problem, or rather, "problem" is that technology is considered competition to the suppliers of labour (just about everyone). If technology can do the job of one person, then the human being will lose his job (and his income). Sooner or later, every job in the world that can be replaced by technology WILL be replaced by technology. I hope the world has foreseen this eventual change and will take care of the displaced accordingly.

nadiatims Wrote:If more monkeys are introduced then yes they need to share, but they can also divide their labor such that everyone works less hard and achieves a higher standard of living. In other words they become more wealthy, by increasing their productivity.

You appear to claim that increasing productivity means higher wealth.

Since the 1970s, American monkeys have been more productive than decades before. While productivity rates have continued to increase, monkey worker wages have not. So if we have increased productivity, then who's making the gains? The company the monkeys are working for. Why are executive CEO income rate rises shooting through the roof like never before when its the WORKERS who have been more productive?

Further proof of this is the fact that houses used to be able to be paid for by one income earner in the household. Now, houses require the incomes of TWO people. This is due to inflation (a hidden tax) which is not the fault of the common people and 100% the fault of the "rich ruling elite".

You also claim that higher productivity leads to decreased scarcity (which should lead to lower product prices). In theory, that should be the case.

However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity

Your last claim is that if more monkeys are introduced, the division of labour (each monkey needs to do less of a job) leads to a greater standard of living.

If more monkeys are introduced, then that basically means an increase in the supply of labour relative to the demand of labour (companies aren't going to employ every single monkey that wants to work, only what they require).

This increase in the supply of labour means that companies can feel confident in lowering their wages offered. Monkeys need an income so they'll take whatever they can get.

Lower wages = lower standard of living.

I'll leave off the rest of your post because I don't feel my knowledge is competent enough in those areas yet and I think the above is more interesting.

apirx Wrote:As long as there are rich people there will be poverty and misery. Being rich should be a criminal offense.

I think that's an over-simplification of the issues being discussed.

apirx Wrote:edit: That's just my opinion, but I believe the poverty in Africa / elsewhere is the main reason for the wealth of the western world.

A valid point. The reason Americans or any other 1st world countries enjoys (relatively) cheap goods is because they, if I can say it, abuse the lower incomes of, these days, Chinese sweatshop/factory workers.

That is China's greatest "gift" to the world: a large population and hence, low wages.

America's standard of living is directly linked to the low wages of foreign countries like China.

Even though America itself has low wages (evident from the extremely large gap between the poor and rich), how many Americans would work like a Chinese, for a Chinese wage? Not to mention the exported pollution.

Which is infuriating when the unwashed masses complain about Made-In-China products, wanting to put a tariff or ban them, without realising that this would only lead to:

1) Increased product prices, or
2) Even lower American wages in order to fund the currrently low prices

IceCream Wrote:if plastic isn't cheap, it doesn't really have any value as a product. We make stuff out of it precisely because it's cheap. Oil stocks are finite, so either it becomes so expensive we stop using it, or it runs out, but both pretty much amount to the same thing...

not that i'm against that, plastic / oil sucks. i just wonder what's being considered as an alternative to plastic.

Plastic is indispensable. Lots of stuff is plastic that most people don't think about, it's not all cheap take away containers and shopping bags. Think insulation on wiring, the primary ingredient in carbon fibre (the P in CFRP) and other composite materials (which will be extremely important for fuel efficient transport in the future), glues, etc. The modern world would fall apart without plastic.

zigmonty Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:if plastic isn't cheap, it doesn't really have any value as a product. We make stuff out of it precisely because it's cheap. Oil stocks are finite, so either it becomes so expensive we stop using it, or it runs out, but both pretty much amount to the same thing...

not that i'm against that, plastic / oil sucks. i just wonder what's being considered as an alternative to plastic.

Plastic is indispensable. Lots of stuff is plastic that most people don't think about, it's not all cheap take away containers and shopping bags. Think insulation on wiring, the primary ingredient in carbon fibre (the P in CFRP) and other composite materials (which will be extremely important for fuel efficient transport in the future), glues, etc. The modern world would fall apart without plastic.

yeah, exactly... that's why i'm interested in what they're planning to replace it with. When the price of plastic becomes too expensive due to oil shortages, it's going to be a huuuuuge problem. So it's not just renewable power we need to be thinking about.

IceCream Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:if plastic isn't cheap, it doesn't really have any value as a product. We make stuff out of it precisely because it's cheap. Oil stocks are finite, so either it becomes so expensive we stop using it, or it runs out, but both pretty much amount to the same thing...

not that i'm against that, plastic / oil sucks. i just wonder what's being considered as an alternative to plastic.

Plastic is indispensable. Lots of stuff is plastic that most people don't think about, it's not all cheap take away containers and shopping bags. Think insulation on wiring, the primary ingredient in carbon fibre (the P in CFRP) and other composite materials (which will be extremely important for fuel efficient transport in the future), glues, etc. The modern world would fall apart without plastic.

yeah, exactly... that's why i'm interested in what they're planning to replace it with. When the price of plastic becomes too expensive due to oil shortages, it's going to be a huuuuuge problem. So it's not just renewable power we need to be thinking about.

If you really want to get scared, consider the process involving converting methane (from natural gas) → ammonia → fertiliser. We pretty much turn fossil fuels into food these days.

i think i've decided i want to go and join a tribe in africa and learn to gather berries instead...

qwertyytrewq Wrote:If productivity is the subject, then there is no doubt what has contributed to the world's productivity: technology.

technology plus division of labor and trade. Larger population size allows for societies to support scholars, scientists, writers, philosophers etc.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:problem, or rather, "problem" is that technology is considered competition to the suppliers of labour (just about everyone). If technology can do the job of one person, then the human being will lose his job (and his income).

Yeah I guess we should all tend our fields with spoons instead of tractors because it'll employ more people. That's sure to make us all more wealthy right? No it would just drive up the cost of food meaning everyone has to work harder.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:You appear to claim that increasing productivity means higher wealth.

Are you seriously saying it doesn't? If you own a farm that can produce 1000 potatoes a year, and you neighbour's farm only produces 500. Then you have more surplus you can trade for products or services that make your life better. I.e you are wealthier than your neighbour.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Since the 1970s, American monkeys have been more productive than decades before. While productivity rates have continued to increase, monkey worker wages have not. So if we have increased productivity, then who's making the gains? The company the monkeys are working for. Why are executive CEO income rate rises shooting through the roof like never before when its the WORKERS who have been more productive?

CEOs get paid high salaries because who ever hires them (board of directors?) decides they are worth it. Why should workers or anyone be guaranteed rising wages if they can't remain competitive with overseas manufacturers? (those very manufacturers who ensure ever lower consumer prices and better quality). If workers think they are underpaid, then they can find another job...That's what CEOs do.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Further proof of this is the fact that houses used to be able to be paid for by one income earner in the household. Now, houses require the incomes of TWO people. This is due to inflation (a hidden tax) which is not the fault of the common people and 100% the fault of the "rich ruling elite".

right. inflation sucks. But is this the fault of CEOs/rich people, or the fault of governments with no understanding of economics printing money to pay for ever increasing social programs demanded by voters and other costs (wars, infrastructure, administration, education etc etc)?

qwertyytrewq Wrote:If more monkeys are introduced, then that basically means an increase in the supply of labour relative to the demand of labour (companies aren't going to employ every single monkey that wants to work, only what they require).

Then the surplus monkeys can find other jobs. Employers are also in competition to secure workers. It is every monkey's duty to find a useful function within society if they wish to remain fed. A monkey in the wild also has to find food for themselves. They can't just mooch off the other monkeys...

qwertyytrewq Wrote:This increase in the supply of labour means that companies can feel confident in lowering their wages offered. Monkeys need an income so they'll take whatever they can get.

Yes. Your wages may go down. It is governed by market forces. Lowering wages also benefit workers in that prices for the things they need will also come down.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Lower wages = lower standard of living.

Not necessarily. Everyone getting paid less at each point in the supply chain means everything you need in life becomes cheaper.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:A valid point. The reason Americans or any other 1st world countries enjoys (relatively) cheap goods is because they, if I can say it, abuse the lower incomes of, these days, Chinese sweatshop/factory workers.

Chinese people choose to work in sweatshops because it beats whatever they were doing before (subsistence farming, ...., drug dealing, prostitution or whatever)...China has lifted huge numbers of people out of poverty in this way.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:That is China's greatest "gift" to the world: a large population and hence, low wages.

Chinese people are becoming wealthier because they are willing to work any job. Westerners on the other hand increasingly seem to think they all deserve a high salary white collar or creative job, free education and healthcare (higher taxes). Or they make themselves uncompetitive because they'll only work for minimum wage. Which is fine, the employers can just offshore the work or hire illegal immigrants.

Technology may lead to higher productivity and higher wealth, but it also leads to disproportionate allocation.

Consider the following example:

There are 200 workers in a factory. The management decides to automatize the factory by installing industrial robots. 100 workers lose their jobs. Productivity rises by 30%. Now the remaining workers could be payed up to 160% more without the company losing money (disregarding the cost for the automatization). This will not happen of course.

The remaining workers will either receive the same salary as before or 10-20% increase. The 100 workers who lost their jobs receive nothing. The shareholders accumulate more money.


edit: I just remembered that this thread was supposed to be about whaling. : DD

oh wow, i asked someone about the plastic thing, and they told me about this:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....r-bacteria
http://itotd.com/articles/540/biodegradable-plastic
http://www.science.org.au/nova/061/061key.htm

They can grow some kind of plastic from bacteria!!! Of course, there's no non biodegradable waste afterwards either. Super cool!!!!!

Yeah, plastic doesn't really suffer the same problem as using oil for fuel does. We use oil because it's a cheap source of carbon chains, but you can synthesise them from anything really. It's just more expensive. Plus, many uses of it are recyclable. Can't really say that about petrol.