Mandroid2.0 wrote:
Yes. Europeans are doing quite well with the "not breeding" thing.

So true. I believe Germany is a leader in this particular field. But, to my astonishment, Italy is not far behind on the negative population growth rate charts. If they can figure out what it is that gets hardcore Catholics to stop plopping 'em out and apply it to South and Central America, and a goodly portion of the US, I think we'd be on our way.

The Czech Republic's pop. growth rate has recently turned positive after a 15 year negative streak. (it is now something like .1%)

Romania continues to be well in the negative, as is Russia and Ukraine. Wonder why.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:

hellyes!! wrote:
Besides, I'm curious...Is there data to prove that the increase in population would directly harm us? From what I understand, the amount of grain we feed to cattle each year to support the beef industry would cure world hunger. What are some of the other concerns? I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know more about this.

Well, yes. It's called "carrying capacity" and is observable in every other biological species on earth. More people can likely be supported if we were willing to give up meat (as it is at the moment, we already have more than enough food to feed everyone worldwide though it isn't evenly distributed)

However, more people means: more pollution, more disease from living in close proximity to one another, more financial stress, more topsoil loss and erosion of suitable farmlands equaling less agricultural output, heightened extinction rates from loss of habitat, loss of genetic diversity due to extinction, more sewage and less non-toxic freshwater, more fossil fuel usage, etc. Overpopulation is pretty much considered the root cause of almost every environmental crisis the world is facing at the moment and I don't particularly think that one has to run a t-test or a linear regression or design a controlled experiment to see that overpopulation is a bad idea.

Firstly, the world is not overpopulated. Secondy, it's fallacious to say that AIDS is a pandemic caused by overpopulation.

Personally, I'd argue that over-production and wastefulness are the main contributing factors in the depletion of resources in the world, not overpopulation. I think it's slippery slope when you start describing pandemics as a natural way of stabilising populations. It sounds very close to eugenicist arguments about population control and the fascist desire for lebensraum (living-room) for their volk. I therefore worry when I hear the word 'overpopulation' being bandied about. I believe the fear of overpopulation to be an incredibly pernicious one.

I also believe that populations won't expand indefinitely:

Phillip Longman wrote:Demographers now predict that our numbers will peak at about nine billion in 2070, and then begin to fall. Most of the richer nations will top out long before then. Russia’s population is already dwindling; if it weren’t for immigration Italy would be in the same position. Japan will start to shrink from next year onwards; Britain won’t be far behind. Europe’s population will fall 4% by 2025. The US will keep growing for a little longer, then follow the rest of us. The real surprise is that the poorer nations are likely to go the same way. Countries like China, Mexico, Algeria and Iran are ageing even faster than we are. Even so, because we are so much older already, it is the rich nations which will shrink first

The shrinking of European populations is mainly a result of two centuries of industrialization and the benefits that brings--namely urbanization and improved women's rights. It is wealth that will prevent us from breeding, rather than disease. World populations are already beginning to plateau.

Mandroid 2.0 wrote:I'm certainly not advocating that we ignore trying to solve pandemics like HIV in order to decrease the population. What I do support is people getting over their archaic religious notions about birth control and sex and figuring out a convenient way not to spit out 10 children who will all live to see adulthood and proceed to consume mass quantities of resources themselves.

People in the developing world 'spit-out' 9 or 10 children due to high infant mortality, not because God tells them to. There are various NGO's (mostly US) that use charitable donations in order to pay for the sterilization of women in the developing world, particularly in Africa, a continent that is certainly not overpopulated and where AIDS/HIV certainly is an epidemic. So I also get worried when people are accused of 'spitting-out' children.

Overpopulation is a myth.

Up with People!

Cranius wrote:

Mandroid2.0 wrote:

hellyes!! wrote:
Besides, I'm curious...Is there data to prove that the increase in population would directly harm us? From what I understand, the amount of grain we feed to cattle each year to support the beef industry would cure world hunger. What are some of the other concerns? I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know more about this.

Well, yes. It's called "carrying capacity" and is observable in every other biological species on earth. More people can likely be supported if we were willing to give up meat (as it is at the moment, we already have more than enough food to feed everyone worldwide though it isn't evenly distributed)

However, more people means: more pollution, more disease from living in close proximity to one another, more financial stress, more topsoil loss and erosion of suitable farmlands equaling less agricultural output, heightened extinction rates from loss of habitat, loss of genetic diversity due to extinction, more sewage and less non-toxic freshwater, more fossil fuel usage, etc. Overpopulation is pretty much considered the root cause of almost every environmental crisis the world is facing at the moment and I don't particularly think that one has to run a t-test or a linear regression or design a controlled experiment to see that overpopulation is a bad idea.

Firstly, the world is not overpopulated. Secondy, it's fallacious to say that AIDS is a pandemic caused by overpopulation.

Personally, I'd argue that over-production and wastefulness are the main contributing factors in the depletion of resources in the world, not overpopulation. I think it's slippery slope when you start describing pandemics as a natural way of stabilising populations. It sounds very close to eugenicist arguments about population control and the fascist desire for lebensraum (living-room) for their volk. I therefore worry when I hear the word 'overpopulation' being bandied about. I believe the fear of overpopulation to be an incredibly pernicious one.

I also believe that populations won't expand indefinitely:

Phillip Longman wrote:Demographers now predict that our numbers will peak at about nine billion in 2070, and then begin to fall. Most of the richer nations will top out long before then. Russia’s population is already dwindling; if it weren’t for immigration Italy would be in the same position. Japan will start to shrink from next year onwards; Britain won’t be far behind. Europe’s population will fall 4% by 2025. The US will keep growing for a little longer, then follow the rest of us. The real surprise is that the poorer nations are likely to go the same way. Countries like China, Mexico, Algeria and Iran are ageing even faster than we are. Even so, because we are so much older already, it is the rich nations which will shrink first

The shrinking of European populations is mainly a result of two centuries of industrialization and the benefits that brings--namely urbanization and improved women's rights. It is wealth that will prevent us from breeding, rather than disease. World populations are already beginning to plateau.

Mandroid 2.0 wrote:I'm certainly not advocating that we ignore trying to solve pandemics like HIV in order to decrease the population. What I do support is people getting over their archaic religious notions about birth control and sex and figuring out a convenient way not to spit out 10 children who will all live to see adulthood and proceed to consume mass quantities of resources themselves.

People in the developing world 'spit-out' 9 or 10 children due to high infant mortality, not because God tells them to. There are various NGO's (mostly US) that use charitable donations in order to pay for the sterilization of women in the developing world, particularly in Africa, a continent that is certainly not overpopulated and where AIDS/HIV certainly is an epidemic. So I also get worried when people are accused of 'spitting-out' children.

Overpopulation is a myth.

Up with People!

Thank you, Cranius!

Yes, the things Cranius comments on here are the REAL questions I was trying to ask. I wanted to know if it is indeed FACT that this world is in danger of over-population. If so, who and where and why? And, is it indeed FACT that we can not remedy the concerns of over-poulation through more consciousness, whether that be less wastefulness, better education, use of birth control, and whatnot. I do not know much about ecology so I do appreciate Mandroid's post in regards to the scientific aspects.

However, Scott, I think you read what you wanted to read in my post and not what I ACTUALLY said. At no point did I say or even imply that it is religious people who are to blame for the world's population issues, which your comment about people who are non-religious not using birth control implied. I think you know me better than that. I was saying that I feel there is great strength in education but that I am REALISTIC about the religious and cultural barriers (and, I left out socioeconomic) as it relates to sex education.

And, with that said, I will say that I completely disagree with you about education only going so-far. Education is the key to EVERY advancement we could dream up as far I'm concerned. I do not take education lightly. Maybe as a librarian I am idealistic in that sense, but I see the difference an education and access to information makes in people's lives every day, not to mention the advancements in the world as a whole such as in women's rights and industrialization as Cranius mentioned.

Hey kids, I looked a little bit more into this.

SHORT VERSION

(+) The compound is speculated (it is only speculation, but it would be novel) to be attracted to HIV membrane electrical charge, not to a particular protein, so membrane mutations would not be an issue.

(-) The other objections still hold - it does nothing to stop HIV after it has entered cells (which happens within days).

(+) Other, similar compounds may inhibit HIV being carried to its target cells, though this is not the only way HIV finds its target cells.

(-) This isn't a medicine, yet, though (+) it is a potential future approach as part of prophylaxis or multi-drug therapy.

LONGER VERSION

So far, they're looking at making topical inhibitors (for skin/mucous membranes) - maybe systemwide later on. The compound doesn't seem toxic to human skin.

Everything to this point is anecdotal test tube stuff and mostly published by the patent-holding pharmaceutical company. The novel approach would be the electrical charge part, because viral membrane mutations wouldn't be a block. There aren't drugs yet that work in that way against HIV (that I know about).

Nothing has been published in journals for CRA-54 in particular, but the CRA family (synthetic, patent held) functions like antimicrobial peptides.

Unutmaz is doing nifty work. S/he is working with antimicrobial peptides that disrupt the viral envelope, also.

Besides the electrical charge/membrane disruption part, another really cool thing is that antimicrobial peptides may also inhibit transfer of HIV by dendritic cells to the target host cell (dendritic cells carry HIV to the lymph nodes and present the virus to other T cells - though that's not the only way HIV gets to the lymph nodes).

Rum-soaked me wrote:The deal is that 1) HIV can enter a memory T-cell in an unknown time frame and lay dormant for decades and 2) once HIV starts replicating, that damn reverse transcriptase starts fucking everything up by making 3 to 6 errors for EVERY RNA to DNA transcription (this can alter, and often does, the HIV membrane structure).
...
[Objection 3] HIV can also have cell-to-cell direct spread (never entering the intercellular space). So, that's another way the membrane attack isn't going to work out.

If the compound is attracted to electrical charge and not to a particular protein, Objection 2 is out. Objections 1 and 3 still hold. HIV isn't all floating out in the ether - it's inside host cells and out of reach of a compound that attacks the membrane.

It's not a cure for HIV. This could be a great new part of multi-drug therapy, though.

xo

bumba

edit p.s. (+/-) There are other objects (bacteria, fungal and viral) that the compound works on. No one knows how many bacteria that we need and use will be affected. You might as well drink bleach.


"Antimicrobial Peptides from Amphibian Skin Potently Inhibit Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Transfer of Virus from Dendritic Cells to T Cells " Journal of Virology, September 2005, p. 11598-11606, Vol. 79, No. 18

Firstly, the world is not overpopulated. Secondy, it's fallacious to say that AIDS is a pandemic caused by overpopulation.

Personally, I'd argue that over-production and wastefulness are the main contributing factors in the depletion of resources in the world, not overpopulation. I think it's slippery slope when you start describing pandemics as a natural way of stabilising populations. It sounds very close to eugenicist arguments about population control and the fascist desire for lebensraum (living-room) for their volk. I therefore worry when I hear the word 'overpopulation' being bandied about. I believe the fear of overpopulation to be an incredibly pernicious one.

I also believe that populations won't expand indefinitely:

Phillip Longman wrote:Demographers now predict that our numbers will peak at about nine billion in 2070, and then begin to fall. Most of the richer nations will top out long before then. Russia’s population is already dwindling; if it weren’t for immigration Italy would be in the same position. Japan will start to shrink from next year onwards; Britain won’t be far behind. Europe’s population will fall 4% by 2025. The US will keep growing for a little longer, then follow the rest of us. The real surprise is that the poorer nations are likely to go the same way. Countries like China, Mexico, Algeria and Iran are ageing even faster than we are. Even so, because we are so much older already, it is the rich nations which will shrink first

I didn't mean to imply that overpopulation was causing the HIV (not AIDS) pandemic. However, people living within close proximity to one another do cause problems when airborne outbreaks occur (see Black Death, Spanish Influenza, etc.)

As for the quoted citation, I'd have to read the entire article before commenting.

Please explain this further: "Personally, I'd argue that over-production and wastefulness are the main contributing factors in the depletion of resources in the world, not overpopulation."

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm curious about what you mean by it.

Mandroid 2.0 wrote:I'm certainly not advocating that we ignore trying to solve pandemics like HIV in order to decrease the population. What I do support is people getting over their archaic religious notions about birth control and sex and figuring out a convenient way not to spit out 10 children who will all live to see adulthood and proceed to consume mass quantities of resources themselves.

Cranius wrote:People in the developing world 'spit-out' 9 or 10 children due to high infant mortality, not because God tells them to. There are various NGO's (mostly US) that use charitable donations in order to pay for the sterilization of women in the developing world, particularly in Africa, a continent that is certainly not overpopulated and where AIDS/HIV certainly is an epidemic. So I also get worried when people are accused of 'spitting-out' children.

I wasn't actually referring to families in the developing world. Those children do not usually grow up to "consume mass quantities of resources." In fact, as you pointed out, many of those children barely live past 30 or 35 years old. That is terrible and I think about it each time I see some dippy high school girl pull out of the high school parking lot in her shiny Hummer while talking on a cellphone (in this case I completely agree with your overconsumption hypothesis stated above, and these are the profuse offspring who do not have high morality rates, much to my dismay, and seem to come in batches of 5).

In my opinion overpopulation is not a myth. There are only so many areas of the earth that can be inhabited by people, there are only so many resources (both natural and otherwise) that we are capable of utilizing, and there is a limit to our numbers. We are not above the other Eukaryotes (or Prokaryotes, depending upon your view) and there is a point where we will reach a natural threshold and be kept in check by the laws of nature.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:I didn't mean to imply that overpopulation was causing the HIV (not AIDS) pandemic. However, people living within close proximity to one another do cause problems when airborne outbreaks occur (see Black Death, Spanish Influenza, etc.)

Is that to do with overpopulation or is it just a consequence of high urban densities? For instance, the current bird-flu pandemic has as much to do with people living in close proximity to livestock and bird migration, as it does with people living in close proximity to each other. I didn't mean to infer that you thought that AIDS was a pandemic caused by overpopulation, but I thought it curious that overpopulation had come up on a thread about HIV.

As for the quoted citation, I'd have to read the entire article before commenting.

The quote came from here: The Global Baby Bust

As Longman outlines, overpopulation is the perception of those of us who live in cities and spend our days surrounded by other human beings; much like Connor's grandpa.

I don't fully agree with Longman's solutions to the potential economic problems caused by ageing societies, but I think his analysis of trends is pretty sound (Basically, he doesn't take into account that once the ageing top-heavy demographic 'dies-off' the population pyramid will automatically realign itself and become bottom heavy again--perhaps, that's just me taking an optimistic view, though).

Please explain this further: "Personally, I'd argue that over-production and wastefulness are the main contributing factors in the depletion of resources in the world, not overpopulation."

I simply meant that we do not seem to manage our resources effectively, and whilst some portions of the globe enjoy surpluses, other regions have a dearth. Our market economies exacerbate and ensure that.

I wasn't actually referring to families in the developing world. Those children do not usually grow up to "consume mass quantities of resources." In fact, as you pointed out, many of those children barely live past 30 or 35 years old. That is terrible and I think about it each time I see some dippy high school girl pull out of the high school parking lot in her shiny Hummer while talking on a cellphone (in this case I completely agree with your overconsumption hypothesis stated above, and these are the profuse offspring who do not have high morality rates, much to my dismay, and seem to come in batches of 5).

In the developed world, with birthrates in decline (or at least levelling out), it is important that people do have more children. It's important economically, in order to counteract trends in our ageing societies. You may not like the ostentation of having a large family, but if people can afford to I wouldn't have any problem with it. Otherwise, you could down a route of deciding who can and can't have children.

In my opinion overpopulation is not a myth. There are only so many areas of the earth that can be inhabited by people, there are only so many resources (both natural and otherwise) that we are capable of utilizing, and there is a limit to our numbers. We are not above the other Eukaryotes (or Prokaryotes, depending upon your view) and there is a point where we will reach a natural threshold and be kept in check by the laws of nature.

So, what is this threshold? Are we there yet? And are we governed by the same population models as other organisms?

EDIT: Thanks to Bumble for the explanation of the science behind the AIDS cure story.

Cranius wrote:In the developed world, with birthrates in decline (or at least levelling out), it is important that people do have more children. It's important economically, in order to counteract trends in our ageing societies.

I'm confused. Do you mean it's crucial to have more kids in Europe or in the United States? I know Germany's having a baby-drought, I really don't see much shortage of bodies or babies over here...

And another thing. I hate it when young, educated couples that I know proudly announce that they will have no children. Then they cite 'overpopulation' as their rationale. If anything, educated, successful, caring and committed parents in loving relationships should be having litters upon litters of babies! They owe it to the world to tilt the balance in favor of non-dumbasses.

Get out there and fuck for the good of mankind.

I for one plan on raising a 10-piece guitar band. Like Glenn Branca meets the Partridge Family.

connor wrote:

Cranius wrote:In the developed world, with birthrates in decline (or at least levelling out), it is important that people do have more children. It's important economically, in order to counteract trends in our ageing societies.

I'm confused. Do you mean it's crucial to have more kids in Europe or in the United States? I know Germany's having a baby-drought, I really don't see much shortage of bodies or babies over here...

And another thing. I hate it when young, educated couples that I know proudly announce that they will have no children. Then they cite 'overpopulation' as their rationale. If anything, educated, successful, caring and committed parents in loving relationships should be having litters upon litters of babies! They owe it to the world to tilt the balance in favor of non-dumbasses.

Get out there and fuck for the good of mankind.

I for one plan on raising a 10-piece guitar band. Like Glenn Branca meets the Partridge Family.

Yes, get to it Connor!

Apparently, although birthrates in the US are currently rising they will level out in next decade or so. I always wonder if it's more to do with general misanthropy when people state overpopulation as a reason not to have any children.

Interestingly, Longman writes:

So where will the children of the future come from? The answer may be from people who are at odds with the modern environment -- either those who don't understand the new rules of the game, which make large families an economic and social liability, or those who, out of religious or chauvinistic conviction, reject the game altogether.

And much as I hate the 'American Baby' for being a spoilt little shitbag, he might just be America's saviour.

Cranius wrote:And much as I hate the 'American Baby' for being a spoilt little shitbag, he might just be America's saviour.

my baby's so fucking spoiled. 13 months old and he still won't sleep through the night in his own crib. you'd loathe him. if he's our savior, oh no...