Population Growth Control Thru Wars, Disasters, Etc. .... a valid theory? ...

[adriantc 0]

Yesterday I should have had a very bad day with a very hard test paper at physics. It seems I was pretty lucky since my teacher forgot the subjects at home. Anyway, as I was having plenty of time to spare I started talking with my deskmate about "what if women ruled the world?". And as I predicted, he said: "There wouldn't be any crime and wars...." (I think that is the general opinion... women are more sensitive, because of their nature as mothers... it is men's nature to have a cold ruthless nature). I admit to be a misogynist (woman hater ... don't know if that is the spellling) so I told him: "War is good, it controls the population growth so the food resources won't be so little compared to the actual needs!". He said "Yeah sure...!". After that we started having an argument... That's is how it usually ends! Going back to the topic of "Population Growth Control Thru Wars, Disasters, etc."... This isn't any new discovery or anything it is as old as the population boom after the industrial revolution. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was made by an english scientist in the 19th century (I searched for his name, but I just couldn't find him... if you do find his name please share it with me, 10x). What he said was pretty simple... War, hunger, natural disasters and epidemics are needed in order to control the population growth. It may seem weird to say War is a needed thing!, but if you really think about it is not such an absurd idea. As you are aware the food resources are not even close to what is needed for over 6 billion people. A very big population growth will result in a fall of civilization as we know it. Overpopulation is a serious problem. So war and epidemics are a needed thing in order to keep the population in some limits. But I also think there is a grater explination to this theorie. Taking Second World War as an example it is clear that society has growth to a limit set by it's old moral standards. People, and I think that is why we are superior to animals, have the ability to learn from their mistakes. But something bad has to happen in order to lern from it. In our case it was World War 2, just as what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki made us realize the full extent of nuclear power.In the ending I could shorten my opinion to two main ideas. Wars, disasters, epidemics are needed to control population growth, but are also needed to give society wisdom to jump to the next level. So what do you think? Is this theorie a valid one? If not why?

[Farseed 0]

In the ending I could shorten my opinion to two main ideas. Wars, disasters, epidemics are needed to control population growth, but are also needed to give society wisdom to jump to the next level.

Yes, I'm certain that these events control population. It's no mystery that this planet can support only so much life. Resources are simply not limitless.

People are still organisms, no matter how lofty we set our minds to be. We obey the law of self-preservation, and we need resources to do so. We obey the law of pro-creation, and we need resources to do so. Because we live near other humans, we tend to disagree over who gets what resources because we're all looking at the same limited set. So even if there were no other moral standards for wars, we'll eventually disagree over who gets what.

It can be different. But for today, this is the way we're doing it.

As far as disasters and epidemics, they serve the same purpose but are apparently motiveless. Unless you want to bring God into it (I'll sidestep that issue, thanks), these natural events can have the potential to remove population sets from the planet and in the end preserve resources from being consumed. Of course, the same resources are just available for others, human or otherwise, to consume eventually.

Wisdom jump? Definitely. Curious thing about the human race: we are most creative when finding ways to destroy each other. The Stonge Age lead to tools and axes with which to cleave limbs. The Bronze Age led to better tools and spear tips with which to puncture torsos. Combustion engines led to cars and tanks. Usually the tech leads the war, but in your example the war led the tech. WWII was the first largely industrialized war, meaning that we were heavily industrialized before the start of the war. We had some tech know-how with which to lead our research into how to kill more people.

The Germans began working on an atomic bomb before we did, and only after a letter and dire warning from Albert Einstein did we begin our own research on the weapon. The Korean and Vietnam Wars led to helicopter advances. The Gulf Wars led to intelligent killing via satellites and remote cameras.

Your views are very valid, imo.

[jlhaslip 4]

I think it might have been a social scientist named Veblen who postulated that War, Famine, disease and other Natural disasters were population control factors. He also developed a theory about "conspicuous consumption". Interesting stuff, for sure.

I'd like to add that there is also a theory that the natural ratio of males/females has an interesting twist to it. Because it seems that males were always selected to do the stupid stuff, like going to war to get killed, there is a slightly higher proportion of males born to accomodate this propensity. I'm not sure of the details, historically, but it is something like 50.2 : 49.8 . Just enough to make it so that men have a slightly larger representation to accomodate their getting killed in wars. Not too sure where or how I know this, so I can't post a reference to the data.

Also, as to the World's ability to support its population, if the entire world today was to live the same lifestyle as we do here in North America, we would need 4 Planet Earths to supply sufficient resources to manage for the next generation. (30 years) It is little wonder that the supply/demand for oil has driven the price of fuel to where it is today. I wouldn't expect it will get any cheaper in the next ten years. The warnings have been available for the last thirty years, so this increase in fuel costs comes as no surprise to me, actually. I've been aware that the resources we consume have been limted for at least that long, and that something would need to be done about it.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. World Population statistics are mind boggling. Not simply with respect to the numbers, but as I indicate above, the lifestyles we choose to live are what will eventually do us in ( well, and another Chernoble or two). We as a Planet cannot continue to consume resources as if there is no tomorrow, or we will soon discover that we have hit the point were the resources are depleted. Last thing I heard, there is enough Oil to allow us to continue consuming at today's rate for about another 50 years or so. Add to this formula the fact that many parts of the world are very quickly developing into more advanced, technological societies and it places a heavier demand on the resources and will shorten the life of that resource. I know that you are all thinking that Technology will be able to extend that period or develop another source of energy to allow us to continue, but the costs will approach the same cost as Oil today because of the 'opportunity cost' of that oil. Simply stated, the opportunity cost of the new source of energy will be the cost of the resource it replaces. Example, do you think it is co-incidental that Hydro costs increase when Oil does? or Propane costs increase when Hydro does? These fuels compete with each other and one can be substituted for another, so their prices are related. A BTU of heat will, over time, cost the same, regardless of the source of the BTU. Similarly, the cost of food and or shelter are driven by the alternatives available, and we as an entire Planet must adjust to these realities. Quickly, I'm thinking, would be best.

 

Well, sorry if I've hijacked this thread, but I guess I jut got involved in the topic.

[adriantc 0]

Yes, I'm certain that these events control population. It's no mystery that this planet can support only so much life. Resources are simply not limitless.

 

People are still organisms, no matter how lofty we set our minds to be. We obey the law of self-preservation, and we need resources to do so. We obey the law of pro-creation, and we need resources to do so. Because we live near other humans, we tend to disagree over who gets what resources because we're all looking at the same limited set. So even if there were no other moral standards for wars, we'll eventually disagree over who gets what.

 

It can be different. But for today, this is the way we're doing it.

 

As far as disasters and epidemics, they serve the same purpose but are apparently motiveless. Unless you want to bring God into it (I'll sidestep that issue, thanks), these natural events can have the potential to remove population sets from the planet and in the end preserve resources from being consumed. Of course, the same resources are just available for others, human or otherwise, to consume eventually.

 

Wisdom jump? Definitely. Curious thing about the human race: we are most creative when finding ways to destroy each other. The Stonge Age lead to tools and axes with which to cleave limbs. The Bronze Age led to better tools and spear tips with which to puncture torsos. Combustion engines led to cars and tanks. Usually the tech leads the war, but in your example the war led the tech. WWII was the first largely industrialized war, meaning that we were heavily industrialized before the start of the war. We had some tech know-how with which to lead our research into how to kill more people.

 

The Germans began working on an atomic bomb before we did, and only after a letter and dire warning from Albert Einstein did we begin our own research on the weapon. The Korean and Vietnam Wars led to helicopter advances. The Gulf Wars led to intelligent killing via satellites and remote cameras.

 

Your views are very valid, imo.

 

Regarding the wisdom jump... that was exactly what I wanted to say. There comes a time in history when technology surpasses the moral fiber of men. In other words men are not suited to have that technology, don't have the wisdom to use it properly. It may be some sort of mechanism of history.... after each great jump comes a great fall... action and reaction. And history does repeat itself. From antiquity, Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire, to the Dark Ages and finally to the First World War and the Second World War. So menkind is like a highspeed train... when it goes to fast ends up crashing, slowly recovers and start again just to have the very same end.

 

Curious thing about the human race: we are most creative when finding ways to destroy each other.

Well we should not forget that we are animals in our origins. For evolution to take place there must be a continuous fight. It is know that war and competition in general are the engines of progress. So killing each other is written in our genes. And since it is written in our genes that means it is something natural. We see it all the time in the animal kingdom... survival of the fittest, the food chain. I don't say "lets embrace war", but we should realize that it is a needed evil.

 

I think it might have been a social scientist named Veblen who postulated that War, Famine, disease and other Natural disasters were population control factors. He also developed a theory about "conspicuous consumption". Interesting stuff, for sure.

I'd like to add that there is also a theory that the natural ratio of males/females has an interesting twist to it. Because it seems that males were always selected to do the stupid stuff, like going to war to get killed, there is a slightly higher proportion of males born to accomodate this propensity. I'm not sure of the details, historically, but it is something like 50.2 : 49.8 . Just enough to make it so that men have a slightly larger representation to accomodate their getting killed in wars. Not too sure where or how I know this, so I can't post a reference to the data.

Also, as to the World's ability to support its population, if the entire world today was to live the same lifestyle as we do here in North America, we would need 4 Planet Earths to supply sufficient resources to manage for the next generation. (30 years) It is little wonder that the supply/demand for oil has driven the price of fuel to where it is today. I wouldn't expect it will get any cheaper in the next ten years. The warnings have been available for the last thirty years, so this increase in fuel costs comes as no surprise to me, actually. I've been aware that the resources we consume have been limted for at least that long, and that something would need to be done about it.

 

Anyway, back to the topic. World Population statistics are mind boggling. Not simply with respect to the numbers, but as I indicate above, the lifestyles we choose to live are what will eventually do us in ( well, and another Chernoble or two). We as a Planet cannot continue to consume resources as if there is no tomorrow, or we will soon discover that we have hit the point were the resources are depleted. Last thing I heard, there is enough Oil to allow us to continue consuming at today's rate for about another 50 years or so. Add to this formula the fact that many parts of the world are very quickly developing into more advanced, technological societies and it places a heavier demand on the resources and will shorten the life of that resource. I know that you are all thinking that Technology will be able to extend that period or develop another source of energy to allow us to continue, but the costs will approach the same cost as Oil today because of the 'opportunity cost' of that oil. Simply stated, the opportunity cost of the new source of energy will be the cost of the resource it replaces. Example, do you think it is co-incidental that Hydro costs increase when Oil does? or Propane costs increase when Hydro does? These fuels compete with each other and one can be substituted for another, so their prices are related. A BTU of heat will, over time, cost the same, regardless of the source of the BTU. Similarly, the cost of food and or shelter are driven by the alternatives available, and we as an entire Planet must adjust to these realities. Quickly, I'm thinking, would be best.

 

Well, sorry if I've hijacked this thread, but I guess I jut got involved in the topic.

 

You haven't hijacked this thread and your very right. What you said describes (taking the train example) that moment before the train runs off the rails, the breakpoint. There has been a huge growth after the Second World War, both in population and in technology and we should expect the revers of the coin, some sort of fall. we could take chicken flu as an warning or the war bettwen the west and the est. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but something bad is going to happen in the next 100 years.

 

Edit: I thought more about this... Usually as you go up in the food chain the population gets lower. So if you are at the bottom of the food chain there are lots of individuals (ready to be eaten), because a lot of animals positioned upper in the food chain eat them. As you go up the population gets lower because there are less animals to eat them. In the top of the food chain there are a very limited number of individuals, because since they are the ultimate predator they will eat a lot of individuals positioned lower in the food chain so their population number has to be very small. And since humans are on the top of the food chain it would be normal that we would only be a few. But there is an anomaly, we are a lot of individuals and nature wants to fix that anomaly thru things like disasters and epidemics and things like that. It is like a fail safe system...

Edited April 30, 2006 by adriantc (see edit history)

[Janissary 0]

You probably know the "feedback" sytems that our bodies have.When something produced much, product makes an effect to sabotage its own source. And when source got damaged, less product begins to produced so effect will gone and circul begins...So as we humans populate more, produce more, spend more etc. Our actions sabotage nature's working circle or human's working society and a break-down occured.Anyway, I hope you get idea <_<Words aint coming.........