Optimum Human Population Size

[jbauer]

That is absolutely disgusting. I'm sure Hitler thought he could solve a lot of problems by "culling" the people he thought were causing the most trouble. Not to mention, no matter how many troublemakers you get rid of, there will be ten times that many ready to take their place.

did ya miss the smiley face?

[PaulConventionWV]

Just so we are clear on my intended meaning of sterilization :

sterilization /ster·i·li·za·tion/ (ster″ĭ-lĭ-za´shun)
1. the complete elimination or destruction of all living microorganisms.
2. any procedure by which an individual is made incapable of reproduction

I know, but I still don't think it's either necessary or beneficial. Any attempt to make life better by decreasing the population is completely futile and pointless.

[PaulConventionWV]

did ya miss the smiley face?

Smiley face or no, I'm pretty sure he's being serious, which is outrageous.

I would love to hear that he's kidding, but even if he is, it's a pretty sick joke.

[Ronin Truth]

But since you want to kill innocent people, you're not for NAP either!

Where did I ever say that? Have you bothered to read the entire thread? The worst 20% of humanity ain't innocent.

I totally agree with the points you've made in your posts. I think killing anybody should be out of the equation (except maybe properly convicted violent criminals!)

Nonetheless, I don't think we can sweep the issue under rug either. I think a voluntary sterilization program, paying people to get sterilized, is a decent middle-ground. As it is, so much money is doled out through socialism to unproductive consumers that paying people to get sterilized would probably offset future increases.

Yeah we can play a "PLAN B" too.

//

[PaulConventionWV]

//

It completely depends on how you define "innocent." I bet you're not so innocent yourself according to a lot of people.

[jbauer]

Smiley face or no, I'm pretty sure he's being serious, which is outrageous.

I would love to hear that he's kidding, but even if he is, it's a pretty sick joke.

Na, you are getting trolled big time. But on a related subject, maybe we could do that whole "purge" thing like in the movie.

[Ronin Truth]

It completely depends on how you define "innocent." I bet you're not so innocent yourself according to a lot of people.

Thanks for the new additional thread bump!

[Ronin Truth]

Smiley face or no, I'm pretty sure he's being serious, which is outrageous.

I would love to hear that he's kidding, but even if he is, it's a pretty sick joke.

All of the world's homicidal serial murdering sociopaths will be singing hosannas to your name. LMAO!

Care to buy a clue about who you are defending and all worried about?

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[PaulConventionWV]

All of the world's homicidal serial murdering sociopaths will be singing hosannas to your name. LMAO!

Care to buy a clue about who you are defending and all worried about?

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

I've already said, I have no problem bumping your thread because people need to know about this stuff.

And when you say "the world's homicidal serial murdering sociopaths", look in a mirror, bud.

If you're just talking about convicted murderers here, then more power to you, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. You're talking about an indiscriminate 20% reduction, no matter who happens to be in that 20% other than the subjective label "worst". That's about 1.4 billion people.

[PaulConventionWV]

Na, you are getting trolled big time. But on a related subject, maybe we could do that whole "purge" thing like in the movie.

Whatever he's doing, he's a pretty sick individual, especially taking into account his post history and his flaring temper (not now, but he has one, trust me).

[Ronin Truth]

I've already said, I have no problem bumping your thread because people need to know about this stuff.

And when you say "the world's homicidal serial murdering sociopaths", look in a mirror, bud.

If you're just talking about convicted murderers here, then more power to you, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. You're talking about an indiscriminate 20% reduction, no matter who happens to be in that 20% other than the subjective label "worst". That's about 1.4 billion people.

Never killed a person in my life.

~1,462,040,000 in Round 1.

~1,169,632,000 in Round 2.

Then I'll bet the remainder of bad guys start getting the hint, and cleaning up their acts.

Meanwhile we're then ~2.5 billion bad guys closer to the optimum world population size.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[PaulConventionWV]

Never killed a person in my life.

~1,462,040,000 in Round 1.

~1,169,632,000 in Round 2.

Then I'll bet the remainder of bad guys start getting the hint, and cleaning up their acts.

Meanwhile we're then ~2.5 billion bad guys closer to the optimum world population size.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

You're welcome, dude. I have no problem bumping your thread.

You may have never killed a person in your life, but you're advocating the eradication of a few billion of them. Would you be willing to serve as one of the hired executioners to carry out this deed?

Also, once you kill off the "bad guys", you're just going to create an environment where we have less jobs, less production capacity and then another 20% are going to get left out and become miscreants no matter what you threaten them with. That's why the elite have the far more lofty goal of 500 million, because they figure they can make the rest of us slaves so that we don't cause any trouble for them.

[Ronin Truth]

Whatever he's doing, he's a pretty sick individual, especially taking into account his post history and his flaring temper (not now, but he has one, trust me).

Nah, I just tend to not suffer fools gladly.

[PaulConventionWV]

Nah, I just tend to not suffer fools gladly.

Right, because you're so perfect. You're never wrong about anything.

[Ronin Truth]

And I suppose nobody would call you a fool, right? What standard are you appealing to?

I don't appeal to standards, I'm an adult.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't appeal to standards, I'm an adult.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

You're a child, is what you are. Adults have standards.

You're welcome, kiddo.

[Ronin Truth]

You're a child, is what you are. Adults have standards.

You're welcome, kiddo.

Not appealing ones.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[PaulConventionWV]

Not appealing ones.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

"Not appealing ones?" Lol, do you even know what a standard is?

Once again, you're welcome, kiddo.

[Ronin Truth]

Right, because you're so perfect. You're never wrong about anything.

I thought I made a mistake the other day. But it turned out I was wrong.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[PaulConventionWV]

I thought I made a mistake the other day. But it turned out I was wrong.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

Ok, I'm outta here. God bless you.

[Ronin Truth]

"Not appealing ones?" Lol, do you even know what a standard is?

Once again, you're welcome, kiddo.

The grade below exceptional? C average?

The world is run by C students. Why? Because there are so many of them.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

[Todd]

The grade below exceptional? C average?

The world is run by C students. Why? Because there are so many of them.

Oh, and thanks for the additional thread bump!

I would like to know more about this. I agree.

Actually I think the world is run by people with pretty low standards....Probably D-

[Ronin Truth]

I would like to know more about this. I agree.

Actually I think the world is run by people with pretty low standards....Probably D-

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...26.DzQKs0oYEFM

[Zippyjuan]

I think the population is getting too big too. Maybe we should be about four feet tall and 98 pounds. Then we won't take up as much space. Instead we keep getting taller and fatter. Cars and houses could be smaller. Need less food and water.

[Ronin Truth]

Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable

Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable

Looking past the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.

It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 9 billion, perhaps more, by mid-21st century. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable" developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion. It may be considerably less, particularly if the normative lifestyle (level of consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that of the United States.

As a consequence of this modern-day "Malthusian dilemma," it is past time to think boldly about the midrange future and to consider alternatives that go beyond merely slowing or stopping the growth of global population. The human species must develop and quickly implement a well-conceived, clearly articulated, flexible, equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in human numbers over the next two or more centuries. This effort will likely require a global population shrinkage of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late 21st century peak in the 9 to 10 billion range to a future (23^rd century and beyond) "population optimum" of not more than 2 to 3 billion.

Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyles. There is no guarantee that such a program will be successful. But if humanity fails in this effort, nature will almost certainly impose an even harsher reality. As a practicing physical anthropologist and human evolutionary biologist, I am concerned that this rapidly metastasizing (yet still partly hidden) demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest evolutionary/ecological "bottleneck" that our species has yet encountered.

Although the need for population reduction is controversial, it can be tested scientifically. The hypothesis may be falsified if it can clearly be shown that ongoing estimates of global population size over the next few hundred years will not exceed our increasingly accurate projections of both current and future optimal carrying capacities. However, the hypothesis will be confirmed if future global population size continues to exceed those carrying capacity estimates by a significant margin. And even if the 2 to 3 billion optimal carrying capacity estimate turns out to be off by, say, a factor of two, achieving a global population optimum of 4 to 6 billion would still necessitate a very substantial reduction from the 9-plus billion projected for mid-century.

Below the Radar?

It is surprising how little scientific and public attention has been directed toward establishing quantifiable, testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon parameters for what the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity might actually be. Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this profoundly important matter. One wonders why-inherent caution, concerns about professional reputation, the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, or any of several other reasons. Given the issue's global nature and ramifications, perhaps the chief reason is simply "scale paralysis," that enervating sense of individual and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude seems overwhelming.

Certainly the rough-and-ready human carrying capacity estimates of the more distant past show considerable variation, ranging from fewer than 1 billion to over 20 billion. And it is obvious that it will be difficult to engender any sort of effective response to the crisis if the desired future population goals continue to be poorly understood and imperfectly articulated. It is, however, worthy of note that several investigators and organizations have developed reasonably well thought out positions on future global population optima, and those estimates have all clustered in the range of 1 to 3 billion.

I hope my hypothesis is wrong and that various demographic optimists are correct in claiming that human numbers will begin to stabilize and decline somewhat sooner than expected. But this optimism is warranted only by corroborative data, that is, only if the above-mentioned "irreconcilable numbers" show unmistakable evidence of coming into much closer congruence.

Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of 10, 15, or even 20 billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, humanity must recognize that there are finite physical, biological, and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity. And to judge by the growing concerns about maintaining the quality, stability, and/or sustainability of the Earth's atmosphere, water, forests, croplands, fisheries, and so on, there is little if any doubt that many of these limits will soon be reached, if they haven't already been surpassed. Since at some point the damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and overconsumption of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible a cautious and careful stewardship.

Perhaps it is time that the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called neo-Malthusian pessimists, be shifted to the "cornucopian optimists." Let them answer: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand, without irreparable damage, another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per-capita consumption increasingly exceed the Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?

In any event, having established a "quantifiable and falsifiable" frame of reference, it is time to make the case that current rhetoric about "slowing the growth of" or even "stabilizing" global human numbers is clearly insufficient. Both the empirical data and inexorable logic suggest that our default position for the next two or three centuries ought to seek a very significant reduction in global human numbers.

Acknowledging Our Dilemma

Is it naive to hope that, once a critical mass of concerned investigators begins to make a serious case for such a reduction, it would become much easier for scientists, environmentalists, politicians, economists, moralists, and other concerned citizens of the planet to speak forthrightly about humanity's critical need for population stabilization and shrinkage? At the least, they should not feel as though they are committing political, professional, or moral suicide by raising these issues. Time is increasingly precious, and our window of opportunity for effective remedial action may not be open much longer-assuming it has not already closed.

Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that insufficiently restrained population growth should be considered the single most important feature in a complex (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural, and sociopolitical landscape. Regulating human population size, and confronting the numerous problems that will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should thus be accorded a central position within the modern dilemma, and as such should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and promptly, than has heretofore been the case.

More than half a century ago, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert Einstein suggested that we would require a new manner of thinking if humankind were to survive. Even though the population explosion is neither as instantaneous nor as spectacular as its nuclear counterpart, the ultimate consequences may be just as real (and potentially just as devastating) as the so-called nuclear winter scenarios promulgated in the early 1980s.

That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic. We must begin our new manner of thinking about this critically important global issue now, so that Einstein's prescient and legitimate concerns about human and civilizational survival into the 21st century and beyond may be addressed as rapidly, fully, and humanely as possible.

Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast
And has more than enough-for no more than enough.
There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom;
But there is a longage of people.

-Garrett Hardin (1975)

Ken Smail is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Kenyon College, and the author of several papers and essays on population that have appeared in Population and Environment, Politics and the Life Sciences, and other journals. This essay is dedicated to the memory of Kenneth Boulding and Garrett Hardin.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563

[paleocon1]

..........

The world is run by C students. Why? Because there are so many of them..............

Nope, the C students don't run anything beyond idiot proof machines. They DO however POLICE the world in both military and cop costumes.

[paleocon1]

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/563[/URL]

World Watch is a typical NGO composed of transnational progressives who imagine a 'utopia' of the future imposed by force and ruled by the unelected impossible for the cattle of humanity to call to account best and brightest most morally perfect who surprise surprise look just like the visionary transnational progressives.

Let population reduction START with an ELE for the trazie progs and their enablers.

[Todd]

Nope, the C students don't run anything beyond idiot proof machines. They DO however POLICE the world in both military and cop costumes.

C+ Students. Probably D-



Navigating the school system isn't a sign of leadership nor intelligence. It's the tenacity of the persistant that rules the world IMO.

[Suzanimal]

According to the Ga Guidestones...
As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.

[Ronin Truth]

According to the Ga Guidestones...
As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.

Only up to a point. 7 billion is just a few billions beyond THAT SWAG optimum point <IMO>.

I'm figuring that the Guidestones message is in support of an all together different nefarious world power and control agenda.