PowerSwitch

Let's imagine that by some miracle the world's political leaders get together to agree a much more equitable distribution of wealth, both within countries and internationally. As a result, 95% of the population have access to physical security, sufficient food, clean water and sanitation, basic healthcare and education. And as a result of that improvement in living standards, most of them can now expect to live into their 70s. Let's also assume another miracle occurs: as a result of their improved living standards, from now on people choose only to have 2 children (on average).

What happens next?

My suggestion is that not only would the human race still be heading for an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe like nothing in our previous history, but that we would end up on course for a worse catastrophe than the one we're currently heading for. Why? Because people have children, in general, in their 20s or early 30s at the latest. And in most of the world, there are far more young people than old - it is only in some parts of the old developed world that we have a glut of elderly people and "not enough" people being born. And that means, if all other things were equal, that the population would continue growing until the first of the 2-kids-on-average generation started dying - i.e. not until the end of this century.

It looks to me as if this scenario would end up worse precisely because it would delay the start of the inevitable die-off and cause the peak level of human population to be higher. As things stand, the population will peak earlier because the large number of people at the bottom the "global wealth pyramid" will run out off food, security and access to decent healthcare long before the majority in the more developed parts of the world suffer this fate.

It seems to me that even though for most of human history it has been the case that a greater amount of equality (internationally) was a pre-requisite to solving the Big Problems humans face, the very fact that we're now so close to an inevitable catastrophe has turned this situation on its head. It is too late for that strategy to be part of the solution, and were it to be implemented it would actually end up making the ecological problems even worse.

Thoughts?

I'm interested both in whether or not people agree with this theory, and what the implications of it are in terms of policy and what is ethically acceptable in this situation.

Cuba has a life expectancy in the 70s, a reasonable (i.e. non-compromising of one's health) standard of living, and a low-enough to be completely equitable ecological footprint.

Now I admit, that's probably not reproducable here in the UK or in Scandanavia: heating would be a serious issue. BUT, the places with the "bulge" of young people are not the UK and Scandanavia: they are almost entirely warmer countries, where it is possible, in theory, to live a healthy and very low-energy life. And even there, most have already reduced family sizes to 3 children or so: the population is not growing nearly as fast as a lot of people last century had feared.

I think if those 2 things in your post happened, Humanity could be said to have "made it" through all this.

I agree that two kids per mating pair is not going to cause a fall in population fast enough. Our population is already wildly unsustainable. However, the only way that people can be persuaded, if at all, to reduce their fertility is if they (a) do not feel under pressure to breed due to a poor prospect for survival or (b) feel that they are not being disadvantaged compared to others. All of which will only be achieved via an equitable distribution of resources

Having said all of the above, I hold out no hope whatsoever that the world will get it's shit together to implement any of the above and so it's all rather moot. It ultimately comes down to logistics and the capacity to impose the necessary measures simultaneously everywhere and it's simply never going to be possible to do that on a global scale. Or, if it was, then corruption would quickly set in at the top and it would all fall apart anyway. In lieu of that, all that any individual nation/territory can do is implement it's own survival strategy for the crisis to come and then batten down the hatches. Even then it's going to be a hell of a ride.

The problem with your thought experiment is that it requires you to make an estimate of how long overshoot can last or what the damage will be. Which you don't do... fair enough, that's pretty much impossible. However then you assume 'inevitable' die-off, which is now both the initial assumption and the conclusion.

stevecook172001 wrote:I agree that two kids per mating pair is not going to cause a fall in population fast enough. Our population is already wildly unsustainable. However, the only way that people can be persuaded, if at all, to reduce their fertility is if they (a) do not feel under pressure to breed due to a poor prospect for survival or (b) feel that they are not being disadvantaged compared to others. All of which will only be achieved via an equitable distribution of resources.

Catch 22?

In lieu of that, all that any individual nation/territory can do is implement it's own survival strategy for the crisis to come and then batten down the hatches. Even then it's going to be a hell of a ride.

So you're agreeing that each individual nation might as well try to look after its own from this point onwards, rather than trying to sort out the world's inequalities first? It seems to me to be impossible to prioritise both of these things at the same time. One of them has to take precedence.

AndySir wrote:The problem with your thought experiment is that it requires you to make an estimate of how long overshoot can last or what the damage will be. Which you don't do... fair enough, that's pretty much impossible. However then you assume 'inevitable' die-off, which is now both the initial assumption and the conclusion.

You're right that I "assume" that a die-off is inevitable at this point. I can't see any way that this can be avoided. The purpose of the thought experiment is not to do with avoiding any die-off but comparing different outcomes within the category of "die-off", both in terms of human suffering and ecological damage, and as a result of differing policy priorities. This isn't about estimating actual numbers, but comparing outcomes. You can estimate that A is going to be worse than B without being able to put an actual figure on either of them.

A thought that ran through my head which is not ethically acceptable - but is actually an outlier solution - and is just as unlikely as UE's 'miracles': that this redistribution of wealth is contingent on voluntary sterilisation. Should I think such thoughts?

emordnilap wrote:A thought that ran through my head which is not ethically acceptable - but is actually an outlier solution - and is just as unlikely as UE's 'miracles': that this redistribution of wealth is contingent on voluntary sterilisation. Should I think such thoughts?

Why is that ethically unacceptable?

It would certainly represent something nearer to a solution than anything else that has been discussed so far in this thread.

It's inherently racist, mainly. We don't want those brown or yellow fellows to reproduce, do we? Let's give 'em a few bowls of rice not to. We whites, though, give ourselves subsidies to reproduce.

Purely as a transference of wealth - before we talk about ethics or the practicality of it - it's not a bad idea so long as it's a genuine transference, not just a token. (Plucks figure - $50,000).

UndercoverElephant wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:I agree that two kids per mating pair is not going to cause a fall in population fast enough. Our population is already wildly unsustainable. However, the only way that people can be persuaded, if at all, to reduce their fertility is if they (a) do not feel under pressure to breed due to a poor prospect for survival or (b) feel that they are not being disadvantaged compared to others. All of which will only be achieved via an equitable distribution of resources.

Catch 22?

In lieu of that, all that any individual nation/territory can do is implement it's own survival strategy for the crisis to come and then batten down the hatches. Even then it's going to be a hell of a ride.

So you're agreeing that each individual nation might as well try to look after its own from this point onwards, rather than trying to sort out the world's inequalities first? It seems to me to be impossible to prioritise both of these things at the same time. One of them has to take precedence.

Reluctantly, yes, I agree UE

UndercoverElephant wrote:

AndySir wrote:The problem with your thought experiment is that it requires you to make an estimate of how long overshoot can last or what the damage will be. Which you don't do... fair enough, that's pretty much impossible. However then you assume 'inevitable' die-off, which is now both the initial assumption and the conclusion.

You're right that I "assume" that a die-off is inevitable at this point. I can't see any way that this can be avoided. The purpose of the thought experiment is not to do with avoiding any die-off but comparing different outcomes within the category of "die-off", both in terms of human suffering and ecological damage, and as a result of differing policy priorities. This isn't about estimating actual numbers, but comparing outcomes. You can estimate that A is going to be worse than B without being able to put an actual figure on either of them.

Figures are generally how we know which of two things is bigger.

AndySir wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

AndySir wrote:The problem with your thought experiment is that it requires you to make an estimate of how long overshoot can last or what the damage will be. Which you don't do... fair enough, that's pretty much impossible. However then you assume 'inevitable' die-off, which is now both the initial assumption and the conclusion.

You're right that I "assume" that a die-off is inevitable at this point. I can't see any way that this can be avoided. The purpose of the thought experiment is not to do with avoiding any die-off but comparing different outcomes within the category of "die-off", both in terms of human suffering and ecological damage, and as a result of differing policy priorities. This isn't about estimating actual numbers, but comparing outcomes. You can estimate that A is going to be worse than B without being able to put an actual figure on either of them.

Figures are generally how we know which of two things is bigger.

Not necessarily, no.

To take a very simple example, if there are two trees nearby you do not generally need to get out a tape measure and find out how tall each of them is in metres in order to be able to determine which is the tallest.

A study of the population dynamics of Iran is useful. Take a look at the numbers:
http://iran.unfpa.org/Country%20Profile.asp

Total Fertility Rate (TFR) = 1.78 children born/woman

Iran is known as a family planning success story. The countrys dramatic decline in fertility from an average of 7 lifetime births per woman in 1986 now reached replacement level at 1.96 nationally, with only a minimal gap between urban and rural areas. Many of the strategies put in place two decades ago to address the country's bulging population a strong network of rural health centres, mandatory pre-marital counselling on family planning methods and free family planning services and contraceptives are still contributing to the general well being of Iranian families and promoting the health of mothers and children.

biffvernon wrote:A study of the population dynamics of Iran is useful. Take a look at the numbers:
http://iran.unfpa.org/Country%20Profile.asp

Total Fertility Rate (TFR) = 1.78 children born/woman

Iran is known as a family planning success story. The countrys dramatic decline in fertility from an average of 7 lifetime births per woman in 1986 now reached replacement level at 1.96 nationally, with only a minimal gap between urban and rural areas. Many of the strategies put in place two decades ago to address the country's bulging population a strong network of rural health centres, mandatory pre-marital counselling on family planning methods and free family planning services and contraceptives are still contributing to the general well being of Iranian families and promoting the health of mothers and children.

What is the relevance to this debate, Biff?

It is good that Iran implements policies like this, and I am glad that they are having a positive effect on the birthrate. This doesn't change anything in the opening post though, does it? Iran is doing this all on its own - there is no outside political influence for them to do so, and the western world has imposed economic sanctions on them for many years rather than helping them in any way. It is not news that providing women with access to contraception leads to fewer births. How could it do anything else?

if a family doesn't have access to resources, isn't it just dividing them up further by breeding more?

if humanity can't figure that out... breed less to concentrate the resources you have...