Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

B Pascal wrote: > That does not even make sense. Indeed that answer was very
> stupid. Put simply more people = equals more food. By killing off
> the producers of food and the creators of food technology, then a
> food shortage will result. The graph about ancient China, was
> before any modern technological revolution. You might as well used
> a graph from the Neolithic era. The world has changed so much you
> need to use a more updated model. Did you even look at the
> website? You may have well have said that vaccines are
> useless. "The only reason the vaccine revolution worked was the
> WWII killed 50 million people. So those 50 million people did not
> need to be vaccinated. Had there been on WWII then those 50
> million people would still be around and the vaccine revolution
> would have failed miserably".

John wrote:

B Pascal wrote:John,
> Overpopulation is a myth. Please visit the website pop.org to
> learn the truth, here are some excerpts from the site: ...

> 1) “Food: there isn’t enough!” Since the time of Thomas Malthus,
> who lived in the early 1800s, doomsayers have gloomily predicted
> that mankind would outbreed its food supply, resulting in
> catastrophic famines. Yet the world currently produces enough food
> to feed 10 billion people, and there are only 7 billion of
> us. That is, with 7 billion human minds at work, we produce enough
> food for 10 billion human bodies.[1] Imagine how much food we can
> produce with 10 billion minds! ...

I honestly don't know how any so-called scientist could be
so stupid as to write something as ridiculous as this.

The only reason that the Green Revolution worked is because WW II
killed off huge masses of people who no longer had to be fed.
Hundreds of millions were killed in Europe, China, Bengal, east India,
northern Africa, and other places. If there had been no WW II, then
the population today would be around 50 billion, and the Green
Revolution would have failed dramatically. Except that a new world
war would have started long before the population reached anywhere
close to 50 billion.

Jack Edwards wrote:
> I'd recommend you look into some of the stuff John wrote on this
> subject a while to get some context.
> http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... #lab100443
> Scroll down to Malthus effect.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Here's a graph from that article of the population of China from 200
BC to 1700 AD. Every time the population goes above the line, people
are starving -- until the next war kills enough millions of people so
that "food technology" can catch up, and the population falls below
the line.



That's the way the world works.

Jack Edwards wrote: > Regarding your graph of Chinese population. My eyeball says that
> if I extrapolate that line out to the year 2000 that the Chinese
> population should be around 300 million and it's over a billion.
> Well, we've discussed the world losing 1/3 of it's population, but
> is it realistic to think it could lose 2/3 or it's population? Am
> I missing anything?

• China's population was so large in 1980 that it imposed an
  extremely harsh one-child policy. The policy was recently abandoned,
  not because China's policy is small enough, but to quell internal
  political dissent, meaning that the population explosion is growing
  even faster.
• China began not being able to feed itself as of the mid-2000s
  decade, and has been scouring the world, especially Africa, for huge
  wheat and rice imports.
• The South China Sea is an existential need for China, as it needs
  the fish to feed its people.
• Most people will not be killed by missiles, even nuclear missiles.
  Most will be killed the "old-fashioned way," with ground wars and
  famines.
• When China's war finally begins, they will face wars with Vietnam,
  India, Japan, Russia, and other countries, and will receive the
  support of Cambodia, Pakistan, and other countries, which means that
  there will be huge, massive slaughter throughout Asia.
• In addition, Chinese will face a massive civil war among different
  ethnic groups, including the Tibetans, Uighurs, and various sub-groups
  of the Han.

coordinate fires said:
On a side note, it seems the wealthier a nation becomes,the lower its birth rate falls. Most western countries I believe are now below replacement rate, hence the drive for such open immigration policies in the European welfare states which require lots of new bodies at the bottom of the entitlement pyramid.

I wonder if some of the developing counties responsible for much of the global population growth will also see declining birth rates as they grow wealthier, or if this is purely a western phenomenon. how would this fit into the framework?

Coordinated fires wrote:
On the green revolution, many of the benefits of this technology hasn't even been allowed to come fully online yet, take the new Beta-Carotene fortified rice strains for example. these have the potential to make vitamin A deficiency in certain parts of the world a thing of the past. This would prevent hundreds of millions of deaths alone and, maybe even more profound, prevent the deficiency that leads to cognitive underdevelopment. Imagine entire generations having even a marginally higher level of cognition combined with education and the accumulative effects of just that one innovation. However there are some organizations lobbying against this that have some very bizarre reasons for opposing this, but I digress... politics.

I could also touch on thorium reactor and related technologies and the potential to produce practically limitless energy, certainly enough to desalinate all the sea water you want for not only drinking but irrigation, imagine the possibilities of simply irrigating the deserts if we so choose.

B Pascal wrote:John,
> Overpopulation is a myth. Please visit the website pop.org to
> learn the truth, here are some excerpts from the site: ...

> 1) “Food: there isn’t enough!” Since the time of Thomas Malthus,
> who lived in the early 1800s, doomsayers have gloomily predicted
> that mankind would outbreed its food supply, resulting in
> catastrophic famines. Yet the world currently produces enough food
> to feed 10 billion people, and there are only 7 billion of
> us. That is, with 7 billion human minds at work, we produce enough
> food for 10 billion human bodies.[1] Imagine how much food we can
> produce with 10 billion minds! ...

Jack Edwards wrote:
> I'd recommend you look into some of the stuff John wrote on this
> subject a while to get some context.
> http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... #lab100443
> Scroll down to Malthus effect.