Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Population and DNA

Well I promised this so here it is.

We often joke about which came first, the chicken or the egg, and as Blacknad has pointed out Dawkins has written a book roughly related to the subject but let dig in and apply some mental horsepower.

Which major problems currently confronting our species, and others, on this planet is not directly attributable to our current and rising population?

1. Global warming
2. Water for drinking and farming
3. Infrastructure costs such as roads, schools, airports
4. Quite a number of wars
5. Costs and losses related to natural disasters
6. Immigration (worldwide not just US)
... and I could add tens if not hundreds of additional items but I think the point is made.

And we treat each and every one of these as a separate topic where we get to debate, ad nauseum, funding this and that and taxes, etc.

The one sacred cow in all of this is population. We continue to increase population without discussion, without measure, without concern about the impact on quality, and do so because our genes are programming to replicate full-speed-ahead damn-the-torpedos.

But how and in what way is this in our best interest as opposed to the best interest of our DNA?

From a biological standpoint it is easy to see why the vast majority of those on this planet do this mindlessly. To not reproduce guarantees the extinction of the DNA line. So DNA that did not control the belief system of its owner dies out while the DNA of those who engage in essentially uncontrolled reproduction proliferates.

Yes I know there are some of you out there doing it for religious reasons or whose churches tell you birth control is wrong. But have you asked yourselves why and considered the implications?

We are rapidly closing in on genetic and pharmacological solutions to diseases that will continue to extend life and decrease child mortality producing an ever larger population. And no where is their any compensatory action. In Japan and Russia and a few other countries where birth rates have fallen recently ... the governments have started incentive programs to increase the population. The only country that has successfully confronted the issue, the People's Republic of China, was universally condemned for doing so. And today is sitting on top of one trillion dollars in cash, a booming economy, and it should surprise no one.

So lets have at it folks. I am challenging you to consider that we should strive for a population of 50% of our current population in the next 100 years to solve almost all of our major problems.

And I fully expect some of your reactions to be near thermo-nuclear. Have at it.

Dan, the answer to your original question is none of them.

You wrote:

"We continue to increase population without discussion"

Now that's not entirely true. Every now and again someone leaps up in NZ and says, "We must increase our population if we want our economy to grow." No-one points out that if you can get an economy to grow without increasing the population you've actually achieved something.

Someone, somewhere once said, "The best thing you can contribute to the next generation is not to contribute any children."

To me that is not a discussion. There are a few old timers like me that remember that ZPG stands for Zero Population Growth.

But it is not in the news.
It is not in the political discourse.
It is not in the schools.
It is not in the pulpit.
It is not just shunned ... it is a non-issue.

I would say that a reduction to 50% within a 100yrs is a supremely ambitious target, but...

I'll assume that everyone in the forum agrees that the world is overpopulated, or at least soon will be. Therefore, I'd say that everyone would also agree that the world would benefit from measures to halt the population growth or reverse the trend.

I think this is a deep subject, and the arguments may be full of potential pitfalls and byways that may not be immediately obvious.

Proposals for reducing population/population-growth need to be based on a clear view of the factors that affect the growth rate. Maybe we can compile a list -

Positive forces, increasing growth rate/population size:

(1) The sexual drive.
(2) Maternal/Paternal instinct - the natural desire to raise a family/to care for offspring.
(3) Expectations of society - "Mum's asking when we're going to start a family" and "You only have one child? When are you going to have another?" etc.
(4) Religious affiliation and belief concerning contraception.
(5) Lack of family planning facilities and related education.
(6) Increased life expectancy
(7) High infant mortality rates, resulting in high birth rates.

Negative forces, reducing growth rate/population size:

(1) Economic factors - such as are believed to be responsible for low population growth in some countries. Some economies have become dependent upon both husband and wife being in fulltime employment.
(2) Regulatory laws such as in China.
(3) More extensive family planning facilities and related education, particularly in regions of high population growth.
(4) ?

That's a start. Can we extend the lists?

Having done so, then perhaps we can examine the various listed components, and hopefully develop rational ideas that might reasonably be expected to contribute to a solution.

Just a suggestion
_________

DA said:
"From a biological standpoint it is easy to see why the vast majority of those on this planet do this mindlessly. To not reproduce guarantees the extinction of the DNA line. So DNA that did not control the belief system of its owner dies out while the DNA of those who engage in essentially uncontrolled reproduction proliferates."

Here's an alternative that could, perhaps, occur:-
I think that the current ecological situation may well reverse the outcome that you suggest. In some regions of the world overpopulation may lead to population collapse through overstressed ecological systems, whereas in other regions with sustainable population densities the stock would remain healthy. In that case, the DNA of the 'mindful' would survive while that of the 'mindless' died out. DNA would still be the 'winner', since it would have effectively created a new strategy for survival, preserved in cells of the successful 'mindful' population.

It is today.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/

The Reith Lectures 2007.

The first one by Professor Jeffrey Sachs is called 'Bursting at the Seems'.

They will be available for download for the next seven days here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lectures.shtml

Blacknad.

Blacknad, excellent link. Audio download only a 61 byte 'ram' file. I look forward to the other lectures.

There are 4 more broadcasts, one on each Wednesday until 9th May, and each will remain available for download for seven days after broadcast.

I'll try to play nice

I'll agree that almost all of our problems are due to population. However, I'll also make the argument that the solution to those problems will come from our population "problem". How? Human ingenuity. More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems.

Now, of course we can't just breed like bunnies and assume everything is going to be rosy, people are going to have to be actively engaged in order to contribute to the solving of our problems (we can't have them eking out a life on a patch of dirt). Enter globalization and development. Take China and India as an example. There's 3.5 billion people that are entering the global community - this very well may be a watershed moment for the earth. Never before, and likely never again, will so many people become actively engaged in the global community at one time. These people, and their children will become educated and will help move our species forward. How many Hawking's, Einstein's or Newton's will we find in 3.5 billion people? I don't want the next Hawking to spend his/her life in a rice paddy. With all 6 billion souls (stabilizing at 9 billion) pushing the human race forward, I don't doubt that we can accomplish some amazing things.

Optimistic? No doubt.

Regarding the China quote


You can't make the argument that reducing population is good for an economy (or at least use China as evidence of that). China has 1 trillion in reserves and a booming export economy because a dirt cheap labour pool of 1.3 billion people is being exploited, it has nothing to do with the 1 child rule. China is a whole whack load of agrarians moving to manufacturing labourers - so in a sense, manufacturing (which is what is driving China's success), is seeing a large increase in the population of available workers.

China's one child policy will come back to hurt them - but it will be in a generation. China realizes this, and they even have a name for it. Google the "4-2-1" problem, where 1 child will need to support 2 parents and 4 grandparents. Some real significant issues come along with that. This is also the reason why the scaremongers have got it wrong in regard to some hypothetical West/China armed conflict. China can't afford to lose it's young - they're too valuable.

"You can't make the argument that reducing population is good for an economy (or at least use China as evidence of that)."

- I can't agree with that. Care to take a guess on the current population of China, if not for the birth controls? Think of all those extra hundreds of millions consuming ever more resources, and scarcely able to pay their way economically due the an ever decreasing share of the resources that remain (raw resources plus social resources, welfare etc.). I think DA has a point.

"More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems"

- True - of course, you're not advocating that we 'breed like bunnies' to achieve that end. We would certainty be better off reducing the population and sacrificing the prospect of a proportionate number of geniuses in the process.

"With all 6 billion souls (stabilizing at 9 billion) pushing the human race forward, I don't doubt that we can accomplish some amazing things."

- Your optimism is refreshing, especially the 9 billion bit.

"This is also the reason why the scaremongers have got it wrong in regard to some hypothetical West/China armed conflict. China can't afford to lose it's young - they're too valuable."

- Yet another reason for peaceful co-operation and mutual help.

I'm not disputing that birth controls were not required in China's case, I just don't think the 1 child policy is the major reason for China emerging as the most significant exporting country in the world - I think that has much more to do with China's Industrial Reform and Open-Door Policy of 1979, loads of foreign direct investment from the West (which has now reached 10 billion USD a month), and the enormous pool of cheap manufacturing labour.



No, no breeding bunnies here. What I am advocating (rather than some Orwellian population control project) is bringing the 'disconnected" into the global community by development through expanding globalization, which incidentally has been shown to reduce birth rates to replacement levels, or in Japan's case, lower than replacement.

By the way - how's Japan's economy doing lately?
(this is tongue firmly planted in cheek, I realize there are a number of factors for the present state of Japan's economy).



I apologize if I am using wrong numbers, I seem to remember reading somewhere that stated global population projections would stabilize around 9 billion.

Just did some reading on the UN website. It shows a 'low variant' scenario with a stable population at 9 billion at 2050, with a 'high variant' of 10-11 billion, without stabilizing.

redewenur wrote:
"(1) The sexual drive."

I think the first part of the problem is stopping the confusion between sex and reproduction. They were essentially the same thing at some point in the past: They are no longer connected. One can have sex without reproduction and reproduction without sex.

"2) Maternal/Paternal instinct"

Which is code for "my DNA makes the decisions and I am just along for the ride." that is precisely the problem. All chemistry ... no sentience.

Thanks Blacknad ... on this issue I would really enjoy being wrong. Alas I expect it will not be heard again for another year or two.

The concept that reproduction is good for the economy is the argument of the retailer. Just as the argument of the man who fishes is that the oceans are infinite. Both are self-serving.

Canuck: "I apologize if I am using wrong numbers, I seem to remember reading somewhere that stated global population projections would stabilize around 9 billion."

No need for apologies. You're right according to 'the medium scenario projection'.

Canuck: "Just did some reading on the UN website. It shows a 'low variant' scenario with a stable population at 9 billion at 2050, with a 'high variant' of 10-11 billion, without stabilizing."

Yes, the following quotes are from page 12 of:
World Population to 2300
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

"Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050 (figure 6). In another 25 years, by 2075, it is projected to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 per cent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by 2300. Therefore, world population growth beyond 2050, at least for the following 250 years, is expected to be minimal."

However, the high and low scenarios differ vastly:

"In the high scenario, it will go from 10.63 billion in 2050 to 36.44 billion in 2300"

"In the low scenario...over the entire period to 2300, by two-thirds, from 7.41 billion in 2050 to 2.31 billion in 2300."

Yes, in the modern world a more appropriate term is 'fertility trends', which takes your point into account, and isn't restricted to describing the natural capacity for reproduction. Unfortunately, in large parts Africa and Asia where increasing population is most serious, 'natural capacity' and 'sex drive' seem to retain their dominance.

(apologies for double post)

Optimists, all of you. As long as people can breath, they will breed.
What the Human Race needs is to adopt a "Global View" among individuals. That can never happen. In poor countries, your kids are your Retirement Fund. Try telling Farmers in Third World nations that they need to stop having kids after their second child - you'll be laughed right out of the Hut.
I took a taxi from the Wharf into downtown Singapore. The driver said he lived in one of the many high-rise apartment buildings we passed along the way. He told me there were two sizes of apartments, 2 bedrooms for small families, 3 bedrooms for large families. he lived in a 2 bedroom because he had a small family - SIX KIDS! And, no, I didn't ask him about his "Global View".

Wolfman wrote:
"As long as people can breath, they will breed."

That does seem to be both the trend and the issue.

"a "Global View" among individuals. That can never happen."

I sincerely hope, you are incorrect because if you are correct human civilization is doomed.

Having commuted to work in Tokyo I can understand why Japan has a falling birth rate. Too bad the government won't leave well enough alone and let future generations experience a decent quality of life. Perhaps letting teenagers experience the Tokyo commute would be as helpful in cutting the birth rate as having them carry around watermelons to simulate pregnancy.

Still, having reviewed all of the posts here, I see something missing and want to drag everyone back to it.

Which major problems confronting us are, at their heart, caused by our inability to control our global and regional populations? And why is it we never confront the underlying issue when discussing them?

For example why not cut the population over the next 50 years rather than searching for more oil? Why not cut the population over the next 50 years rather than building more schools?

Our genetic coding will not allow that. We need to be re-programmed. The Watermelon idea is a good one. People need some incentive to get the Population Explosion under control. Say, Tax benefits, a special "ZPG Fund" that rewards couples without children, some sort of penalty for those who do. Can you visualize that? I can't. And here's something else to consider - How do you convince the Islamic World that this is the way to go?

DA asked:

"why is it we never confront the underlying issue when discussing them?"

You already answered your question:

"The concept that reproduction is good for the economy is the argument of the retailer."

Canuck wrote:

"More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems."

Unfortuanately the next time human population numbers in the world crashes it will not be the first time. Populations have certainly completely died out at times regionally, usually through over-exploitation of local resources. This is another issue that is not confronted often.

If Canuck wrote: "More people equals more minds equals more human horsepower available to solve problems." Then he is partially correct. More people does equal more minds. There is no evidence that it equals more horsepower to solve problems. Anyone that thinks that no doubt thinks committees make good decisions too.

What was the human population when J.S. Bach was writing music?
There haven't been any better?

Lets run down the list of the greatest minds of which we know?
Newton? Einstein? DaVinci? Rembrandt? Pythagorus? shall I go on?

If Canuck was correct then it would follow that a human population on this planet of 60 billion would be better than a human population of 6 billion. Anyone want to test it out?

Click here: http://opr.princeton.edu/popclock/
and let me know when we get smart enough. <g>

Have been thinking about this (while I've been trying, and failing, to get some work done).

As I stated before, I think it's pretty obvious that most of the world's problems are caused by the population - after all these are human problems, remove humans from the equation, and the problems go away. Simple as that.

But - an alternate theory (and I'm just flapping my gums here). Is the problem over-population, or is the problem that the population is not developed enough?

Think about the timeline that North America has gone through over the past 150 years, heck even the past 30 years. It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to bury "old barrels" out in the back 40. A town here in Ontario, lost it's water supply due to contamination from a UniRoyal plant that occurred back in the 60's (they made Agent Orange for the US military back in Vietnam). Love Canal, Hamilton Harbour - the list of Superfund sites goes on and on. But this just isn't acceptable any more. Society has decided that we can't bury old barrels - we've changed, and the result is, many of the problems we're dealing with, are historical ones. As North America has become more developed/advanced many of the "problems" caused by people are becoming less and less. I'm not saying everything is perfect - but it's pretty hard to deny that things are much better now than they were in the 70's.

So why are we getting better? I think it could have something to do with the fact that we don't have to worry about whether or not we will survive past tomorrow - we live fairly secure lives. There may be some ups and downs, but we will get through. Most of us will live into our late 70's. This removes a huge amount of pressure from us, and gives us time (and energy) to worry about other things - like our impact on the environment.

Then look at other, less developed regions of the earth. The African villagers that shoot an elephant in order to sell it's tusks on the black market couldn't care less about the health of the elephant herd. The fisherman who has a starving family and uses dynamite to fish isn't worried about losing the world's corals. And the country that needs electricity to lift millions out of destitute poverty isn't worried about air pollution.
When it comes down to acute vs chronic issues..........acute always takes precedence, even if the solution to the acute issue causes a chronic one.

So - how do we get the world's population to develop a global conscience? We could probably start by giving them the tools so they no longer needed to scratch out a life. Development to the rescue......Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!

sigh - Morgan, if you had bothered to read my post you will see that nowhere I was advocating increasing the population to some obscene number. In fact I explicitly stated "Now, of course we can't just breed like bunnies and assume everything is going to be rosy".
The quote of mine that you pulled was in the context of bringing the people, that are in effect, 'disconnected' from the global community (aka the ones eking out a life in a rice paddy), into the global community, so that we can get the whole of humanity actively engaged in addressing problems and helping move the human race forward.

Once again you're looking silly by quoting people out of context.

Canuck wrote:

"Plus you get the added bonus of a greatly reduced birthrate!"

Eventually.