Ludwig asks: “I wonder how the global average compares to 1931? Not ‘greater’ at all, I would think”

Certainly the three key measures in the UN’s Human Development index – life expectancy, real per capita GDP, and literacy – are all MUCH “greater” than they we in 1931:

http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/8987/wp_10-07_.pdf;jsessionid=959F808A358886C29A4AA0D4925E83CB?sequence=1

Furthermore, broader measures of welfare indicate that the gap in human development between people in rich and developing countries is narrowing. Because developing countries are improving in areas like literacy and health care more quickly than on economic measure like GDP, these broader welfare measures actually show faster reductions in inequality than per capita GDP alone.

Popnperish
You say: “It frustrates me that this population debate has become ideological.”

Coming from you, that’s really a bit rich. Most of your posts reflect a fierce ideological hostility to population growth. The very name you have chosen for this forum displays your obsession.

Predictable, Ludwig.

>>Can’t you just appreciate Everald’s good intentions in putting his thoughts out there in the public arena on OLO, and debate them without being offensive?<<

These were not just "thoughts", though, were they. We were in fact lectured quite directly to "find enlightened leaders for a new world and put them in charge as a matter of urgency." What twaddle. Who, in the twentyfirst century, is going to choose to live in a dictatorship? Our form of democracy, limp and borderline corrupt as it is, does at least contain a modicum of checks and balances.

One of the freedoms we have, and should cherish, is the right to raise a family. Without, I suggest, Big Brother looking over our shoulder. Another is to strive for improvement in our own circumstances, while staying within the law, without being heckled by the do-gooder, holier-than-thou brigade.

>>I wonder how the global average compares to 1931? Not ‘greater’ at all, I would think!<<

You don't need to apply a great deal of thought to this, Ludwig, to realize that in every single measurable category, the world is better off today than in 1931. I'm only surprised that you chose to challenge the idea.

And please, popnperish, if you are going to make massive claims like this, at least have the confidence to back it up with concrete examples.

>> We are certainly exceeding the Earth's capacity to sustain us at the moment<<

The Earth is managing extremely well in sustaining us. Agreed, we are not quite so good at such things as food distribution and political stability in some parts of the world.

But that isn't the Earth's fault.

Pericles,

Conditions are better for a lot of us, largely due to technological progress, not more people, as they have also improved in countries with fairly stable populations.

The US has a lot more people than in the 1970s, but most men are receiving lower real wages than in 1979.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

Nor are conditions rosier for everyone elsewhere. According to their own government, 42% of India's children are malnourished, and 60% are stunted by past malnutrition

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/10/child-malnutrition-india-national-shame

From an article in one of the two foremost science journals (T. Wheeler and J. von Braun, Science 341, 508 (2013)):

"About 2 billion of the global population of over 7 billion are food insecure because they fall short of one or several of FAO’s dimensions
of food security."

You are also overlooking environmental overshoot. The Global Footprint Network is an international think tank of scientists, engineers, and economists that has been trying to quantify our consumption and impact on the environment.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

It is clear from their figures that we are using up renewable resources much faster than they can be replenished. Something like 190 million people in India and 130 million people in Northern China are completely dependent on unsustainably pumped groundwater. No water, no food.

We are also facing serious problems due to total human impact on a number of different planetary life support systems. To see this, just pick up a few issues of Science or Nature, or even one of the popular science magazines such as New Scientist or Scientific American. These warnings are coming from mainstream scientists who publish in top journals, not hysterical fringe Greenies. This article summarises the main concerns

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Open version: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

No functioning environment, no economy. The UN has recently raised its medium population projection to 10.9 billion. How will the extra people and their demands help? You remind me of the joke about the economist who jumped off a tall building and was heard to remark that everything was fine so far, as he passed the 20th floor.

Ludy, my reference to increased productivity, is to reduce the percentage of hanger oners, an ever increasing problem we face in this country.

As for global population, it's all about birth control for third world countries, as opposed to the il fated, well intended donations that just keep rolling in.

That's an assertion, Divergence, not evidence.

>>Conditions are better for a lot of us, largely due to technological progress, not more people<<

Who caused the technological progress, do you think? Did it just happen on its own, or did people have a hand in it somewhere.

>>The US has a lot more people than in the 1970s, but most men are receiving lower real wages than in 1979.<<

What would it look like, do you think, if you took that graph back to 1931?

>>According to their own government, 42% of India's children are malnourished, and 60% are stunted by past malnutrition<<

I thought we were comparing what was, with what is. How does this figure compare with 1931? And what is the relevance of this sentence, from the same article, in your view?

"The number of underweight children in India has dropped by a fifth over seven years"

>>It is clear from their figures that we are using up renewable resources much faster than they can be replenished.<<

There is nothing wrong with pointing out that we need to pay closer attention to the use of the earth's resources. But to translate this as "we are certainly exceeding the Earth's capacity to sustain us at the moment" is inaccurate, as well as counter-productive on account of it being inaccurate. If the statement was "we are in danger of exceeding the Earth's capacity to sustain us in the future" it would be both true, and (presumably) lead to a call to action.

I suspect that the problem might be that we have become so incapable of analysing facts for ourselves, that hysterical overstatement is judged to be the only way to get our attention.

Shame, really.

Rhian
My position on population growth is firmly embedded in science, not ideology. I first became aware of the impact of human growth on biodiversity when studying Zoology at Sydney University under the late and great Prof Charles Birch. Everything I have read and seen since (overcrowding in developing countries for instance) has simply confirmed the science.