The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Its not the economy population control is the priority

Its not the economy population control is the priority

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
As we more towards militarism instead of the well being of communities the real issues must be to address population control in every region.Our economy is based on competitive greed and defence needs instead of the needs of the whole community. The economy has been hijacked by the militarists. War never solved any problems all wars did was create more angst and poverty. The poor are used as cannon fodder in armies and the elderly, women and children suffer most.
Posted by concerned citizen for good governance, Monday, 19 November 2012 9:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Make up your mind citizen.

For the last couple of thousand years war has been the most successful method of population control, or have you been too busy to notice?
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 19 November 2012 10:28:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, population is the MOST important issue.

Major problems:

Firstly, there is an enormous amount of effort going into increasing food supplies in order to keep up with the ever-increasing demand, but scant little effort going into stopping the demand from increasing. Agricultural scientists, genetic engineers and food-producers of all sorts, are all working on the supply side of the equation.

Who’s working on the demand side? Not many people at all.

It is absolutely CRAZY! There’s no sense of balance. There is effectively only a mad pandering to an ever-larger population.

Secondly, governments across the world are in the pockets of big business and all those who want rapid growth for vested-interest profit-driven reasons.

Thirdly, religions and cultural beliefs inhibit the all-important reduction in fertility rates.

Fourthly, there are many blockages that stop people getting the necessary resources and assistance to improve their lives and thus give them the choice to have fewer children.

I can’t see that wars or militarisation have got much to do with. Sure, as we become more resource-stressed, this will come into play. But currently it is well down the list of concerns related to population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 19 November 2012 1:37:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear talk about the adgenda
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=media&id=/video/cec_wr_special_greenfascism.htm

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=media&id=/video/20121116_cec_wr.htm
Posted by one under god, Monday, 19 November 2012 1:45:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All very apocalyptic, concerned citizen for good governance, what with all that militarism, greed and such.

But I think I may have (probably much to Ludwig's surprise) an answer to the problem.

Let's make the 21st century the "Chinese Empire" century.

Previous empires have mainly focussed on trade, and the improvement of economies through world trade. Europe, where most of the empire-builders have traditionally been based - Italy, England, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands etc. - are well into their post-growth economies. If we can persuade China to colonize Africa, and encourage them to exploit that continent's incredible mineral wealth to fuel both economies, the birth rate will naturally recede, as it has done elsewhere, and we will all avoid disaster.

The problem we have right now is an over-abundance of democracy and cargo-cultism. The imposition of a command-and-control regime on key African countries would first of all ensure that the local despots did not, as they have since the collapse of the previous empire, continue to loot for themselves all the financial benefits. Second, it is in the interests of the empire-builder to have the countries under their control far more self-sufficient than they are at the moment. If the current crop of aid-donors could scale back their assistance, which at the moment is mainly going into the pockets of said despots, everyone will benefit.

It would be a bitter pill for many to swallow, of course, as we have grown accustomed to the idea that dictatorships are inherently and invariably bad. But let's be honest: they did achieve quite a lot while they were in vogue. Well, with some notable exceptions, of course...

The reality is that no federation of democratic nations, however well meaning, could get the job done at all efficiently. They would end up like the European Union, nothing more than a bureaucratic talk-fest.

I think I will recommend this to Xi Jinping and his Politburo. Does anyone have their phone number?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 November 2012 4:07:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
concerned,

Yes, population control should be a major concern, let's concentrate on Australia before considering other regions. I'd agree with Ludwig's comments, there's little or no economic advantages in increasing our population at such a high rate and probably no economic or social advantages in increasing the population at all. Many nations with smaller populations have superior social and economic indicators, the fantasy of a high growth rate is mainly promoted by vested interests who have managed to capture politicians' imaginations.

"War never solved any problems"- well yes it has, how else could democratic societies have resisted the Nazis or the Japanese militarists 70 years ago or Europe the Moslem attacks of earlier periods in history.

Militarism is an entirely separate issue.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 12:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
I have been living, breathing and working with agriculture for many years now. Horticulture to be more specific. Within the Australian horticultural industry we do not see a trend towards producing enough food as a problem.
The continuing trend is one towards the quality of the product presented to the customer. If I had to guess, around 60%, yes 60% of what we produce never makes it out of the farm gate and is ploughed back in due to not having met quality parameters.
This has had significant impacts on the way we produce food in this country accross all sectors of agriculture. There is not one farm in the country focused on producing the most kJ of energy worth of food from their available resources. In fact, the reverse is the case, we are producing ever fewer quatinty for the sake of producing a product which meets the growing demand of our customers.
So I'm not sure who these many people are who are focussed on how to feed the population.
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 7:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello ManOfTheLand. Nice to make your OLO acquaintance.

Interesting comments. I don’t have much idea at all about the efficiency with which we produce food in this country. But as you’ve been in the game for a long time then I accept what you say.

I guess it’s part of having a high quality of life to demand a high quality of food.

So even with the quite enormous wastage, the Australian populace is well fed and the producers make a reasonable living….. and it is sort of nice to know that if we become pressed for food, we can actually produce a whole lot more pretty easily, just at a bit lower quality.

In Australia, the priority is on quality, not quantity, because the quantity is more than sufficient to meet the demand. That is why there are not many people focussing on how to feed the population in our country. They don’t need to.

But around the world, there is certainly a major need for better ways of feeding the people…. and there is a great deal effort going towards achieving this, in the face of a still-rapidly increasing global population.

And there is STUFF-ALL effort going into stopping this population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 8:11:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice to make your OLO aquaintance also Ludwig.
With regard to Australian population growth, I have made my views on the subject clear on a similar post in the main page titled "States need to intervine in population growth". Suffice to say that I think that a well managed population growth in this country could be beneficial, managed in the right way.
As far as global population growth goes, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that there is stuff all effort going into this. China obviously gave this some considerable thought many years ago, and Asian countries in general (India included) have given this considerable thought.
As a farmer, I have been watching global food trends with interest as it may have some long-term effects for our industry. There are some reliable statistics on this on the ABARES site (for some reason I had trouble pasting the link in). Key points are:
- The real value of world food in 2050 is projected to be 77% higher than in 2007. (In $US)
This sounds like a big number, however this represents an anual increase of only 1.3%. Also, it is only half that of the previous 40 years (165%)

- China accounts for 43% of this increase, while India accounts for around 13%. Bare in mind, these figures are based on VALUE of food stuffs. The lions share of the projected increases are also based on income increases in these countries and subsequent increases in value of the types of food they consume. (Higher protein & sugar in their diets)

In short, I'm not sure that it is as dooms day as the substance of this thread seems to convey. In fact, in Australian agriculture, the pressure is on as much as ever to be more efficient, add more value to our products, as opposed to simply being able to feed the world.

By the way - "producers make reasonable living". The reality is that profitablity of Australian agriculture is declining. Imports are increasing significantly and exports are declining, especially at the higher end of the value chain.
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Thursday, 22 November 2012 6:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Suffice to say that I think that a well managed population growth in this country could be beneficial, managed in the right way. >>

Agreed, ManOfTheLand.

The key is to make sure that population growth IS beneficial and not just in the short term, and to be willing to bring a halt to it if it isn’t.

Currently in Australia, the level of pop growth is strongly negative for our future wellbeing.

<< As far as global population growth goes, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that there is stuff all effort going into this >>

There are a few examples of significant action, such as China. Also Iran, which has now gone into total reverse. But overall, it’s just not happening anywhere near enough.

We’ve got researchers of all sorts working on better food production and quality, energy provision, medicine, etc, all of which works towards facilitating population growth.

The best that can be said about all of this in terms of achieving sustainability is that it hopefully improves the lives of some of the world’s poor and hence helps to lower the fertility somewhat.

I don’t see the rapidly increasing global food output as a particularly good thing, at least not in isolation. If it was part of a concerted effort to achieve sustainability, then yes it would be good. But as I say, it is effectively just the opposite – a facilitation of our global trend AWAY from sustainability.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:09:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
We are approaching some sort of agreement in some areas. I have added a couple of links at the bottom here from UN stats and another one showing growth by world region. Here are some key messages from the data:
- Population growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960's, and since then has halved. (2.19% then, 1.15% now)
- Growth estimated to be less than 1% by 2020, and less than 0.5% by 2050.
- World population increased 100% in the last 40 years, and is expected to take another 42 years to increase a further 50% to 9 billion. (As of 1999)
- UN projects the population will stabilise at just above 10 billion after 2100.
- Africa's population growth has been more than double that of the rest of the world.
- Africa has the ability to feed itself but not the political or economic organisation.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
http://www.newsbatch.com/africa.htm

From this, I would draw the following conclusions:
- We need to think about creating a sustainable world with a population of 10 Billion. I believe this is possible given the resources we have.
- Africa is the key to this problem. We have 2 options here:
a) Shut Africa off to the rest of the world and let nature take its course. They will either organise themselves or starve their way to sustainability.
b) Intervene in the political and economic structures there. To organise these societies would have the effect of stabilising their population anyway. And perhaps have the added benefit of largely lifting them from poverty.

On face value, option b seems to be the more humanitarian one. However this would obviously require SIGNIFICANT intervention and a massive change to their culture. Perhaps something even akin to the erosion of the aboriginal culture here.
May-be your are right. May-be we shouldn't be making any effort to feed the world's poor [directly]. Perhaps you could go as far as to say the likes of Bono and Bill Gates are major contributors to the problem?
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Friday, 23 November 2012 12:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Manothe Land,
Your figures are interesting but again I must draw attention to the
arithmetic of energy.
At 10 billion we might have enough energy to all live at current
African levels in 2050.
However many countries, Australia, US, Europe, Japan & China will very
likely want to maintain a living standard close to what we have now.

To satisfy these "bottom lines" will require a few billion to die.
Understand these easily checked facts.
1. Peak world crude oil occurred in 2006.
2. Peak world coal will occur about 2025.
3. Peak "world other liquids" will occur about 2016.
4. World food production will follow down energy production.

In regards to Australia consider these facts.
1. Australian peak crude oil occurred in 2000.
2. Australian refineries are currently being closed.
3. Aus Crude oil production is approx 45% of demand.
4. Decline rate of production 3% to 4% a year.
5. Security of supply is tenuous and dependant on affordability.
6. Coal & Natural gas being exported at increasing rates, peak 2030 ?
7. Food production dependant on oil based energy supplies.

The question is as our oil declines can we feed ourselves ?
Our food is dependant on others supplying us with oil.
I would be interested to know what proportion of your on farm costs
is diesel and petrol ?
Is your production heavily dependant on diesel such as harvesters etc ?
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 24 November 2012 1:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Thanks for the feedback. Glad to see that someone on OLO is at least thinking about the argument in a considered way.
You are right to point out that energy is the key. In my views about population growth are tied to those about the future of our energy supplies. For the future to be sustainable in any meaningful way, it would be imperative that we wean ourselves off these sources of energy. I think you would agree that this would be the case regardless of what happened with population.
Even there, it is foreseeable that these demands could be met in a sustainable way. The potential energy in nuclear is approaching limitless, considering that the current nuclear power plants really only scratch the surface of what is possible. The reason uranium 74 isotope is currently used to generate the majority of the world's nuclear energy is that of all the naturally occurring isotopes, it is the one which produces the LEAST amount of energy and therefore the easiest to control. We need to get over our ignorant fear of nuclear energy and continue to improve it rather than abandoning it.

I firmly believe that as oil declines we can continue to feed ourselves. In answer to your question, diesel and petrol do not contribute greatly to my cost of production DIRRECTLY. In fact, they do not even appear in my top 10 cost categories. However, they (along with electricity) are closely linked to my major costs. (Transport, packaging, fertiliser, chemical, water) All of these costs have a large energy component built into their cost profile.
To be clear, my main argument on this subject is that we have the resources on this earth to sustain the predicted population growth. Certainly not that we can all merrily continue to live the way that we do without making any changes.
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Monday, 26 November 2012 8:17:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Man O' Land;
Some while back I read an article by someone who had tested ploughing
by tractor versus horse.
I can't remember the exact figures but it was based on 100 hectares I think.
It took him three hours to plough that land with a four furrow plough
with a tractor and three days with a horse and a single furrow plough.
His conclusion was that in absence or unaffordability of diesel we
will need about 40 times the number of farmers that we now have.
Another problem will be the affordability of natual gas derived fertilisers.

Nuclear power of course produces electricity not liquid fuels.
Therefore we would have to fit all paddocks with overhead wires, ala
trolley busses.
Incidentally Siemens and Mercedes are experimenting
with electric trucks on autobahns, so the idea is not that wild.

The more important problem is the relative energy efficiency of
hydrocarbons versus uranium, steam, electricity, transmission.
Diesel is very very energy dense.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 26 November 2012 2:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
The inference that we would have to fit paddocks with overhead wires is as ridiculous as returning to the horse and plough (although that might give all the Africans something to do).

You are correct in saying that diesel is energy dense in terms of MJ per L. But hydrogen has an energy density per kg, many times that of diesel. Further more, the advancement of hydrogen fuel cells in the last ten years has been significant. The answer may also lie in cellulose ethanol. It is not easy to predict what the future transportation fuel will look like, but suffice it to say that there ARE indeed alternatives. I have thought for some time now that the next Bill Gates will be someone who comes up with a significant energy solution or advancement.

This is precisely the type of area that I feel we should be focussing on, rather than bleating about controlling the population of the earth. Is your argument based on the assumption that if we reduce the population in the world, then we can all carry on as we are, with little need to worry? Do you think that if we were to halve the population, then we would have enough hydrocarbons to last forever? Of course not. I can't predict what the sources of energy will be, I merely make the observation that we have enough resources to sustain this level of population.
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Monday, 26 November 2012 3:46:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Man O' Land said;
I merely make the observation that we have enough resources to sustain this level of population.

Ah but for how long ?
Re the interference with poles & overhead wires, yes I agree a problem
but currently trolly busses can move out a couple of lanes so it may be
possible to have quite wide cultivation "lanes".
An alternative might be to do what was done from age of steam with
traction engines and cables to pull ploughs etc. They were quite
successful so we might end up there again.
Re hydrogen, I was keen on that idea a while ago but the opinion was
changed in the reading I did and it is now basically dead as a motive fuel.

A couple of Christmases ago I was talking to my son's father in law
who is managing director of the largest bus and fire engine
manufacturing company in the UK.
They had tried hydrogen fuel cells in busses but their lifetime was uneconomic.
There are also other drawbacks, such as the weight of the tanks and
that they can never be stopped from leaking.
The result is any vehicle using hydrogen has to have special garaging
with roof ventilation and they cannot be parked underground.
The loss of hydrogen unless they are in continuous use makes them
expensive to run. The distribution infrastructure will probably never
be financed.

>The answer may also lie in cellulose ethanol.

Possibly but so far it has like ethanol fallen over because of the
EROEI and net energy. There really are no easy solutions on the
horizon for mobile energy, except perhaps steam.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 26 November 2012 4:56:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,
Sorry for the delayed response. I am not running from the debate I assure you.

With regard to the hydrogen technology, I agree that this problem looks difficult at the moment. However, the trend looks encouraging. In 2002, the production cost of fuel cells was around $275/kW, while in 2010, this figure had dropped to $51/kW.
The target here is $30/kW which would make it around $3000 for 100kW (134hp). This would be approximate parity with internal combustion engines. Some significant advancements have also been made with the problems of leaking, reliability and service life you mentioned.
You have to consider the amount of research resource which has been poured into combustion engines in the last 100 years and compare that with the relatively new research effort into hydrogen. Ethanol falls into the same boat.

I also wouldn't discount someone finding more effective ways of storing electricity. Lithium ion batteries have proven to be a significant step forward in this area, although they don't provide the long term solution we are looking for. But the point remains - find an effective way to store electricity and you have solved the worlds problems.

Aside from these points, the way our entire societies are structured with regard to transport, may require some out of the box thinking
Posted by ManOfTheLand, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 7:13:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Man O' Land;
If they do manage to produce a long life fuel cell there is still the
problem of ERoEI. There is no efficient way to produce hydrogen that
gives a good eroei. There seems to be only electrolysis and natural gas.

Natural gas probably would be better directly used in engines.
Electrolysis by generating electricity from the sun would ultimately
be very neat, but can it be scaled up enough ? Could we afford it ?
Could we build enough solar cells & would the shade area cause problems ?

As you say if we can store electricity on a large enough scale we
would be home & hosed. Unfortunately there does not seem to be
anything remotely on the horizon to do the job.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 8:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found a couple of items on steam tractors.
I could not find one that I had previously read about where a steam
winch or a tractor was placed at one end of a paddock and a steel cable
draws the plough across the paddock. I think they had one tractor at
each end of the paddock and between the two they pull the plough back
and forth as they move along the side of the paddock.
In the 1800s in the UK there were teams operating during the farming year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tractor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPG5lIwyCfU
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 8:22:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy