2.1 kids: Stable Population
via NSFW
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 Bits and Pieces - All Rights Reserved Bad Behavior has blocked 27979 access attempts in the last 7 days. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 Bits and Pieces - All Rights Reserved Bad Behavior has blocked 27979 access attempts in the last 7 days. |
|||
This is the most asinine thing I have ever seen on the Internet.
Why is that asinine?
How is it asinine? While the first video may have some facts to debate, the last one is pretty much spot-on: if a society does not keep its population steady and it decreases, there will be less tax payers to fund the social programs that the society wants. Look at the USA: right now, it is about 10 tax payers paying into Social Security for each person taking money from SS; in about 15-20 years, it will be 4 tax payers paying for each person taking from SS. Thus, if this continues, we will see what happens when the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, SS, becomes bankrupt.
Of course, I am ignoring the fact that Washington has raided the SS fund for years and it is currently underfunded from that.
How is it asinine?
I dunno, maybe the facts are wrong?
While the first video may have some facts to debate,
Yeah, that would make it asinine, the part where you know it’s wrong, then ask why I think it’s asinine.
if a society does not keep its population steady and it decreases,
You cannot make a case that this is a bad thing, and you do not. You also are linking the needs of “society” through Washington DC to support your premise we need to keep breeding. Can you see why this needs to be thought about, perhaps a bit more. Take your time, I can wait.
Thus, if this continues, we will see what happens when the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, SS, becomes bankrupt.
The video was the most asinine thing I had ever seen on the Internet now I think it’s your attempt to link support for unchecked population with funding federal entitlement programs, yes, I am sure of it now.
I predict you will get a lot of people to support them simply because more sex is required to keep the thing going and in that, you simply cannot go wrong, regardless of the consequences of your actions.
You surf the net a bit, Tim, and you see the videos of human beings.
Are you certain we need to make more? Are you sure we do not have quite a fucking enough?
This assumes each generation only lives long enough to be replaced. This is false.
There are now up to FOUR generations alive and the age of mortality is increasing.
So your grand parents had 2 kid each, your parents had 2 kids each and you have two kids each but you are ALL still alive
that is NOT stagnant. That is grandparents(2) + parent (2) + your generation (2) + children (2)=8 with no mortality.
It also assumes all governments and land masses are capable of sustaining life equally and the populations are proportional to ability to sustain them. Also False. Over population in India and Africa is rampant as demonstrated by the famine and child mortality.
Third, How will population peak in 30 years?
Only ‘developed’ countries have seen any slow down in number of children being born. So again, India and Africa and South America will quickly outgrow their ability to sustain themselves which leads to either A) Famine or B) Land War
Look at the world bank or the UN’s population charts. Since 1960 the Earths population has more than doubled. It is not linear, it is exponential growth.
Call the ball. the math is wrong.
The first video does not actually address the premise is seems to be trying to refute. Namely, that food production increases in a linear fashion wil population grown (seems to) increase expotentially. The premise is false, but the video offers nothing to prove it.
The second is simply wrong. 2.1 children per woman is the minimum replacement in industrial nations *taking in to account* the various factors the video claims it does not take in to account, including those who choose to be child free.
Whoever made these videos is an idiot.
My question is how is the population supposed to level off and start dropping in 30 years? Unless some people do stop breeding, then the population will just continue to grow exponentially.
Populations in Japan and Russia are already approaching equilibrium and are expected to decline in the future.
I have to side with Mike on this one. Overpopulation is not a myth. However, I do feel that an ‘overpopulation crisis’ will only exist in situations where technology fails to deal with the problem.
For example, had food-related technology not progressed, human beings would have died out long ago.
Today’s technology allows more food to be grown more quickly and with higher viability yields (for example, new breeds of chickens that become bigger in less time.
As well, we can take things (meat trimmings, for example) that once would have been wasted and process them into foods (sausage).
We’ve been lucky that food production has kept up with population.
Another problem with this video is that YES, you COULD put the population of the planet in a small area, but it fails to take into account the amount of land per person that is necessary to produce the food and other resources that the individual needs to live.
No overpopulation? Come to Japan and tell me it’s not overpopulated.
Look at developing nations where technology is not available to efficiently produce food and other necessities.
Population control IS necessary to the progress of our species.
So, I’m with Mike on this one: this video is naive at best.
The first video states that every family could have a house with a a yard in an area similar o the state of Texas. Of course, it doesn’t say how big would the house and the yard be. Also, the video doesn’t state if that yard will be able to provide each family with food, water and a place to dispose of its garbage and other disposals.
According to my understanding, we need a lot more room than our own home to live the way we live today. We send garbage to the dump. Kids go to school. Adults go to work. Our cars need room to move, and even to be parked outside the house. Etc… etc… etc…
When I was 10,there were 2 million people living in my country. Today, 20 years later, population in Costa Rica is around 4 million people. All I see is population keeps growing and growing. All the places where I used to play with my friends as a kid, have now became condos or houses.
Unless I start seeing it otherwise, I feel my country is getting overpopulated,
What a bullshit video. It makes me angry.
Their argument:
1) Because 1/5 of the population didn’t die of overpopulation like someone predicted, there is no overpopulation.
2) Because they think the population will peak in 30 years, their is no overpopulation.
These arguments are by itself logically incorrect, and thus meaningless independent of the truthness of their assupmtions.
They also say that because the ratio between old and young is becoming greater, more childeren should be made. And when those childeren are becoming old, they probably say the same thing again and again, which will sky rocket the population. Man, what an idiots!!!! Furthermore, the ratio is caused by post WWII babyboomers, which is only temperary.
When you do look at facts:
1) The peak in 30 years is one of the lowest estimations taken from the UN. The UN also has other estimations, like “high”, in which population will grow further.
2) There currently are about 6819 million people in the world. In 1900 there where about 1650 million people.
So, since the beginning of the previous century, the population has grown more than 4 times as big. I REPEAT, IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE POPULATION HAS GROWN 4 TIMES AS BIG.
That is F**cking CRAZY!!!
We Homo sapiens exist since 200.000 years ago, and now, in the last 100 years, the population quadrupled. I can’t get it out of my head without surprising me every time.
Okay, this idiotic growth doesn’t mean/defines that the world is overpopulated, but by itself, the growth is crazy.
If you then also take into account that resources such as food and water are becoming more and more expensive in the world, and the Earth is becoming more and more polluted by because of the number of humans, I clearly believe the world is overpopulated.
A pro-life “institute” says overpopulation isn’t a problem? Gosh, what a shock!
I think these “myths” are the result of a very common misunderstanding of what growth rates actually represent. Population models – and there are quite a lot of them – are generally based on differential equations, which means that they describe the rate at which population increases on an annual basis (as a percentage), not a population multiplier. If this value is positive then the population continues to increase; if it is negative then it is decreasing. The current world growth rate is about 1.1 and in ten years time it is estimated to be 0.9. That does not mean that population will be 90% of what it was previously, it means that the population is increasing at that time by 0.9% per year. However, the compound effect of these annual figures, which are themselves decreasing, is astounding: the world population is expected to increase by 50% by 2050. The models do suggest that the growth rates are approaching zero, but they will never reach zero or become negative, which means population will continue to increase. The Population Reference Bureau (PRB), the United Nations, and the United States Census Bureau (USCB) have all done extensive studies on this, and have models running up to 2050.
This document from the PRB is an interesting breakdown: http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08WPDS_Eng.pdf
This page from the USCB provides graphs and tables of growth rates: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.php
People can argue all they want, but average birth rate HAS to be at least 2.1 for a society to maintain its current population.
If you disagree with this, you better go rethink your math. Just a quick example, you have 8 great grandparents who only have one child and their children only have one child. Now, when those 8 die there is a huge drop in pop.
8 Great
4 Grand
2 Parent
1 You
So, once you see the current generations where it is considered “inconvient” to have child reach their death. You will begin to see a massive drop in population.
I realized that I enjoyed reading some of the comments about this blog. The discussion was civil and thought out for the most part. No demeaning of each other and no “us versus them” statements. Well done, folks…
(Sorry, I posted this before I saw your comment, Richard. It was – I hope – a civil response to the 2.1 figure given by Whitehat.)
The problem with people who produce videos like this is that they demonstrate an uninformed ignorance by making statements which show that their world perspective exists in terms of how people live in the developed countries in the world. Excluding China, over two thirds of the world live in developing countries and the current fertility rate, which this video is in favour of using, is around 3.2. Unless we see world poverty being eliminated during the next fifty years nothing will significantly change that statistic. I am saddened to say that the only thing which balances this figure is the horrendous mortality rates of infants and young people in those parts of the world. It is because of the complexity of these types of statistics that real mathematicians utilise differential equations. In a sense they measure the “momentum” of population growth and factor in historical growth to make sensible predictions for the future. In other words, the diminishing growth rates are due to continuing improved standards of living. Although the equations don’t deal in the details, the historical data is an objective measure of this. So the good news is that the reducing growth rates prove that the world is changing for the better and both education and aid is making a positive difference in the poorest countries in the world.
Hang on just one darn second… how the hell am I going to fit into Texas now? What what what? I don’t wanna go to Texas, I like Miami. At least, I like the kinda Miami they show on telly over here.
Secondly, re: aging population. All my HR classes tell me to take into account the value of technology when hiring for an organisation. ie. today we can do more things with fewer people thanks to computers, machines etc. So I don’t think the universe is going to grind to a halt when the Baby Boomers retire.
But I do agree with the fact that there is a skills shortage- that is, there aren’t enough people to fill all the gaps in the market where vacancies exist. Which is why Australia is peachy about giving you a work visa if your job is on the “skilled” migration list. And these “skilled” occupations are higher earners, pay more taxes, and thus support the welfare state (which, might I add, works rather well in this country!). So I’m all for skilled migration or targeted education… but 2.1 babies? I’d rather have 0.0.
I would be willing to bet my right sock these vids were made by someone who isn’t at all interested in environmental sustainability or environmental economics. Maybe they should google those two phrases.
PS the above comment is from a developed rather than developing world outlook. If you take into account the developing world, the video can be shot to pieces as in all the above replies.
I would be willing to bet my right sock
Uh, is there something about your right sock that might make an interesting wager, Bambi?
It’s a real good sock. I got it in Sweden. Its partner was lost somewhere in Spain. That’s seriously unique! (just “unique” doesn’t describe its uniqueness…)
Bambi,
Could we get a photo of this? Jon would so post it here.
Trust me, anytime a woman offers to show any article of clothing here, we’re all for it.
By the way, if you’ll check out my blog, I have a Glitchy Universe theory on what happened to the sock in Spain.
Sorry, no sock pics on first date. I’m not that kinda girl!
when I first saw these videos I noticed how they tell you how everyone else is wrong. Then they tell you what they think, without giving any real information, just believe us like you used to believe those other guys we just said were stupid.
This video is pure scheisse, what saved us from mass famine was the green revolution led by doctor Norman Borlaug (look him up). Each person is unique and different, so is each snowflake.
kiravuo
uhm hum,
we’ve moved on to Bambi’s socks. Dammit man, try to focus. This is important!
Getting back to Bambi’s sock and a previous post…Living in a country that uses metric measurements, what does Bambi put in that sock?
30.48cm?
That’s hot.
of course the obvious solution presents itself.
1. Those that think the world is overpopulated can kill themselves
2. Those that think the world is fine the way it is can have as many kids as they want.
This way everyone can be moral.
OK, epiphany.
The video is intentionally nonsense to make everyone argue that there REALLY IS the threat of overpopulation.
6,697,254,041 – World Population – 2008 Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators
1,674,313,510 required space at at 1/4 acre per person
There are 640 acres per square mile
2,616,115 square miles for 1/4 acre per person (assuming everyone will eventually have their own family)
Only 268,601 square miles including water in Texas
FAIL
That’s 10 people per 1/4 acres in 2008 (for Texas)
So lets try the whole US
3,537,441 square miles.
2,616,115 square miles for 1/4 acre per person (assuming everyone will eventually have their own family)
So everyone could have a house and a 1/4 acre in the US assuming it was all habitable which it is not – includes all of Alaska, west Texas, New Mexico and Arizona deserts.
Hardly the same argument.
It is easy to see that this ridiculous video was made by pro-lifers and very likely religious people, with no accounting at all (as others have said more eloquently than I) the environmental costs, the actual land use of every human, food production issues, and about 25 other things.
Typical fundamentalism nonsense. You can’t discuss issues like this with them rationally, because they do not think rationally.