[Debating with Mathematician Jorge Calvo on the alleged overpopulation myth]
Paolo (In response to this naive and misleading video)
These math geniuses might need a little help, Jorgito. What will the 7 billions in Texas actually eat? Drive? Wear? Will they burn fuel to warm up or just huddle together?
The problem is not the population the size of Texas (or Zanzibar, in the old days) but its ecological footprint. What we are seeing is that developing nations do stop growing, but also their ecological footprint grows. Perhaps people stop reproducing when they have something more interesting to do. Right now our ecological footprint is already a earth and a half. We're burning resources faster that they can reproduce. You might have heard about deforestation, the vanishing of the larger fish species, the inability of Middle Eastern nations to significantly increase demand during the boom years of oil $100s/barrel.
So do the math: increase in population + increase in footprint = disaster.
I don't plan to be around, I'm doing my part. Good luck to you breeders! :)
Jorge
I don't think that anyone is advocating that you move to Texas. That was only a metaphor, you know.... :-)
I would guess that there are "math geniuses" on both camps. The main difference in our points of view is that you, like Malthus and Ehrlich, consider the population to be the problem, and you would eradicate the world of those pesky humans to solve the problem. Of course, what you fail to realize is that the day the last human being on earth dies is precisely the day the planet dies.
Now speaking about bad mathematics, the fact is that your cute model of "population + footprint = disaster" ignores the largest variable of all, which is the economic and entrepreneurial potential of any population of human beings. You say Malthus's predictions would have been on target, if it were not for the industrial revolution. And so would Ehrlich's, if it were not for the green revolution in the 1970's. But both revolutions were by-products of human ingenuity -- the economic potential of that you are ignoring. It was impossible for Malthus to predict the onset of the steam engine and for for Ehrlich to predict the invention of dwarf wheat. It is also impossible for you to predict how humanity will curb deforestation, dwindling fisheries, or energy needs. But to disregard such a possibility would be bad mathematics.
In my view, the problem is not the population but its "footprint," as you call it. BTW, before the almighty Al Gore arrived on the scene, Catholics had another name for this... We called it "greed." And, yes, we have a better way of solving this problem than the UN's idea of going down and sterilizing entire villages in Peru -- where the ecological footprint is pretty small in the first place. It's just too bad that the powers that be keep confusing "personal repentance and charity" with "redistribution of wealth and welfare programs."
I would guess that there are "math geniuses" on both camps. The main difference in our points of view is that you, like Malthus and Ehrlich, consider the population to be the problem, and you would eradicate the world of those pesky humans to solve the problem. Of course, what you fail to realize is that the day the last human being on earth dies is precisely the day the planet dies.
Now speaking about bad mathematics, the fact is that your cute model of "population + footprint = disaster" ignores the largest variable of all, which is the economic and entrepreneurial potential of any population of human beings. You say Malthus's predictions would have been on target, if it were not for the industrial revolution. And so would Ehrlich's, if it were not for the green revolution in the 1970's. But both revolutions were by-products of human ingenuity -- the economic potential of that you are ignoring. It was impossible for Malthus to predict the onset of the steam engine and for for Ehrlich to predict the invention of dwarf wheat. It is also impossible for you to predict how humanity will curb deforestation, dwindling fisheries, or energy needs. But to disregard such a possibility would be bad mathematics.
In my view, the problem is not the population but its "footprint," as you call it. BTW, before the almighty Al Gore arrived on the scene, Catholics had another name for this... We called it "greed." And, yes, we have a better way of solving this problem than the UN's idea of going down and sterilizing entire villages in Peru -- where the ecological footprint is pretty small in the first place. It's just too bad that the powers that be keep confusing "personal repentance and charity" with "redistribution of wealth and welfare programs."
Paolo
Just the other day a friend here on FB was pointing out the convergences and conflicts between environmental justice and organized religion and I chose to disregard his point of view. I see now how wrong I was: indeed the faithful seem concerned that the reprogramming of guilt from the sexual to the environmental sphere will lead to fifes being intercepted by elective institutions and redistributed by programs rather than churches.
Texas is a misleading metaphor, pointing at a limited space but forgetting to inform that such an arrangement would need 2 to 3 planed earth-sized resource producers to parachute goods on the Lone Star.
As I pointed out very clearly, I don’t think the problem is the population, but the convergence between increase in numbers and increased consumption of non-renewable resources. I don’t speak for the UN and sterilization squads sound like death panel and other conspiracy theorist hogwash to me.
As for human ingenuity, that’s hardly money in my bank account. While it might be a given to a man of faith like you, I need to point out that it doesn’t seem to be a constant in periods of distress. It did not save Haiti from total deforestation nor prevented its population from eating dirt. The worse the conditions become, the less resources we will have to invest for human ingenuity to provide us with solutions.
More important, the most recent century explosion of human ingenuity-driven productivity was based on an historical and geological anomaly, namely the abundance of cheap oil. An event that will not be repeated anytime soon in the history of the planet. Costs of energy are bound to increase, and the necessary technology to be out of reach of the poorest.
At best, we will have widespread unnecessary suffering. Preventing that is the real charity. Taking good care of God’s creation, the real mission of the man of faith.
Jorge
Texas is a misleading metaphor, pointing at a limited space but forgetting to inform that such an arrangement would need 2 to 3 planed earth-sized resource producers to parachute goods on the Lone Star.
As I pointed out very clearly, I don’t think the problem is the population, but the convergence between increase in numbers and increased consumption of non-renewable resources. I don’t speak for the UN and sterilization squads sound like death panel and other conspiracy theorist hogwash to me.
As for human ingenuity, that’s hardly money in my bank account. While it might be a given to a man of faith like you, I need to point out that it doesn’t seem to be a constant in periods of distress. It did not save Haiti from total deforestation nor prevented its population from eating dirt. The worse the conditions become, the less resources we will have to invest for human ingenuity to provide us with solutions.
More important, the most recent century explosion of human ingenuity-driven productivity was based on an historical and geological anomaly, namely the abundance of cheap oil. An event that will not be repeated anytime soon in the history of the planet. Costs of energy are bound to increase, and the necessary technology to be out of reach of the poorest.
At best, we will have widespread unnecessary suffering. Preventing that is the real charity. Taking good care of God’s creation, the real mission of the man of faith.
Jorge
The interesting thing about the conflict between "environmental justice and organized religion" is that it IS a conflict between religions. Of course, environmentalists do not like that label because they would rather have the impression that religion is the same thing as superstition. Case in point, look at the way you disparagingly refer to those who share my point of view as "the faithful."
Deep down, environmentalism has its own philosophical worldview about where humanity belongs -- in this case, well below the environment, perhaps with the same level of dignity as all other animals, perhaps just a bit below -- and that makes it a religion. Like you say, different people, different gods. That is where the conflict comes from.
Now as far as the UN sterilizations in Peru, they are the real deal. I'll try to find a link for you, but I'm sure you'll not trust the source... after all it'll probably just be part of the conspiracy. ;-)
Paolo
art of the conspiracy theory. There is actually a difference.
You make an important point. But in the conflict between religions, I look at the data, and the data tells me that the original video is misleading, and counting on quantity unknowns, like possible future developments of science, unwise at the very least.
Many other civilizations collapsed before when environmental conditions changed or they made unwise choices.
It sure won't be the end of humanity, we are tougher than the more dignified roaches, but again lots of human suffering might be spared by thinking ahead.
The oyster strategy has its limits.
Jorge
Fact 1: Malthus says overpopulation will destroy the world before 1900.
Fact 2: It doesn't.
Fact 3: Ehrlich says overpopulation will destroy the world before 1970. And 1980. And 1990.
Fact 4: It doesn't. And it doesn't. And it doesn't.
Unless you have data for at least one civilization that fell apart because of overpopulation.... well, you know where my money is.
Paolo
Deep down, environmentalism has its own philosophical worldview about where humanity belongs -- in this case, well below the environment, perhaps with the same level of dignity as all other animals, perhaps just a bit below -- and that makes it a religion. Like you say, different people, different gods. That is where the conflict comes from.
Now as far as the UN sterilizations in Peru, they are the real deal. I'll try to find a link for you, but I'm sure you'll not trust the source... after all it'll probably just be part of the conspiracy. ;-)
Paolo
art of the conspiracy theory. There is actually a difference.
You make an important point. But in the conflict between religions, I look at the data, and the data tells me that the original video is misleading, and counting on quantity unknowns, like possible future developments of science, unwise at the very least.
Many other civilizations collapsed before when environmental conditions changed or they made unwise choices.
It sure won't be the end of humanity, we are tougher than the more dignified roaches, but again lots of human suffering might be spared by thinking ahead.
The oyster strategy has its limits.
Jorge
Fact 1: Malthus says overpopulation will destroy the world before 1900.
Fact 2: It doesn't.
Fact 3: Ehrlich says overpopulation will destroy the world before 1970. And 1980. And 1990.
Fact 4: It doesn't. And it doesn't. And it doesn't.
Unless you have data for at least one civilization that fell apart because of overpopulation.... well, you know where my money is.
Paolo
Easter Island, Maya, among others. And yet the past barely matter while we find new and more efficient ways to wreak havoc on earth.
Jorge
Easter Island and the Maya culture most definitely did not collapse from overpopulation, since there was a whole rain forest's worth of resources to sustain them. I don't buy either example.
And to say history barely matters... well, that seems like bad scholarship all around. Basically your mathematical model ignores a variable because you don'... See Moret know how to account for it and posits a conclusion that has no historical validity.... See More
But let's get back to what we agree on: That greed is the problem. (OK, in your opinion, part of the problem.) How about this... for the next five weeks, let's you and I both lighten our ecological footstep. Say a coffee in the morning, a piece of fruit for lunch, and a grilled cheese sandwich and a bowl of soup for dinner. Nothing else to eat or drink but water. Whatever we would have spent on food for those days we give to Catholic Relief Services to help out in Haiti. How does that sound?
And to say history barely matters... well, that seems like bad scholarship all around. Basically your mathematical model ignores a variable because you don'... See Moret know how to account for it and posits a conclusion that has no historical validity.... See More
But let's get back to what we agree on: That greed is the problem. (OK, in your opinion, part of the problem.) How about this... for the next five weeks, let's you and I both lighten our ecological footstep. Say a coffee in the morning, a piece of fruit for lunch, and a grilled cheese sandwich and a bowl of soup for dinner. Nothing else to eat or drink but water. Whatever we would have spent on food for those days we give to Catholic Relief Services to help out in Haiti. How does that sound?
Paolo
I think it sounds like a fine idea. And willing it or not, it's what we might have to do in the future anyway. If not us, probably your descendants.
I don't think greed is a problem, even less "the" problem. Greed is part of human nature, like many other things. The problem is the institutionalization of greed. It's the million death in Irak to secure 10% of the oil reserves, so that we can keep our wasteful cars running. Our economic system based on unsustainable growth. And above all, the refusal to see that there is a problem. We could have easily corrected it years ago. It's probably still possible. The more time goes by, the longer the coffee/grilles cheese period will need to be.
In Haiti pre-quake people ate dirt. They also had plentiful forests before they grew and cut them down, like it probably happened on Easter Island. It was easy to prevent. We could have, for instance, avoided to support the local bloody dictatorships. Invested heavily in education (women's education, major factor in limiting births towards the magical 2.1). That's what we should, and could do all over the world.
I don't think greed is a problem, even less "the" problem. Greed is part of human nature, like many other things. The problem is the institutionalization of greed. It's the million death in Irak to secure 10% of the oil reserves, so that we can keep our wasteful cars running. Our economic system based on unsustainable growth. And above all, the refusal to see that there is a problem. We could have easily corrected it years ago. It's probably still possible. The more time goes by, the longer the coffee/grilles cheese period will need to be.
In Haiti pre-quake people ate dirt. They also had plentiful forests before they grew and cut them down, like it probably happened on Easter Island. It was easy to prevent. We could have, for instance, avoided to support the local bloody dictatorships. Invested heavily in education (women's education, major factor in limiting births towards the magical 2.1). That's what we should, and could do all over the world.
Posts
