Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 20, 2016
World Population Will Stabilize Because Humans Aren’t Cockroaches
For bizarre reasons that I simply do not understand, world population growth is a hot-button issue. There is a large segment of the public that seems to believe that humans will continue to reproduce until we run out of food and water. Basically, we’re just like cockroaches or bacteria. No serious demographer believes that — as world fertility has been declining for years — but facts haven’t yet extinguished this pernicious myth.
Just two months ago, in response to an article I wrote in 2011 on the myth of overpopulation, I received an e-mail that read: “You are the worst kind of a**hole. You’re obviouly [sic] a pawn of the powers that be.” So, I’m a bad person because I believe humans aren’t cockroaches, and I only hold this opinion because I’m being paid off by… well, somebody.
Internet malcontents aren’t the only ones who hold these strange views. The always enlightened Bill Maher told a woman that she is “super-selfish” for having five children.
The exact opposite message, however, was sent by anthropologist Heidi Colleran from the Institute for Advanced Study (Toulouse, France) in a review article published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*. Humans appear to be the only organism that actually reproduces less as resources become more available. She writes:
“Over the past 200 years, people from different religious, linguistic, ethnic and cultural groups, living in economies with different histories and value-systems, are increasingly limiting their families to around two or fewer children.”
Demographers do not completely understand why this is the case. On the surface, it is easy to say that, in wealthy societies, the cost of raising children has become so high that people produce fewer of them. But this fails to explain the underlying evolutionary phenomenon, namely, how it is that a society can evolve in such a way that producing fewer children is beneficial. Demographers have developed various models, but none is satisfactory. Thus, it was Dr. Colleran’s intent in the review article to explore these models in more detail.
The human behavioral ecology (HBE) model insists that there must be an evolutionary advantage to limiting fertility. Perhaps having fewer, but more educated and more prosperous children, maximizes long-term fitness (i.e., reproductive success). The trouble with this view, however, is that it is paradoxical and lacks supporting evidence. If low fertility is evolutionarily advantageous, eventually, we should expect low-fertility societies to “cash in” on their evolutionary advantage by cranking out more children. But, they don’t.
Cultural evolution (CE) models place emphasis on other non-biological factors. For instance, a desire for high social status may make a person less likely to have children. But, in forgoing biological children, if the person achieves a high social status, he or she can still “pass on traits” to the next generation in the form of culture. If other members of society share similar goals, then the outcome will be fewer children.
The author appears to favor the latter model, however she indicates that much remains to be explained. There is no simple formula for fertility. Education, contraception, and desire for social status play interrelated roles, but it is unclear what ultimately drives fertility rates.
Countries like Japan and Russia, which will lose about 1/3 and 1/5 of their populations in the next 40 to 50 years, respectively, will hope that Dr. Colleran will find an answer sooner rather than later.
*Interesting side note: Founded in 1665, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is the world’s oldest scientific journal. Isaac Newton was published in it.
American Council on Science and Health
25 Comments on "World Population Will Stabilize Because Humans Aren’t Cockroaches"
penury on Fri, 20th May 2016 10:56 am
Apparently n such poor health that they can no longer interpret reality when she comes calling.
Sissyfuss on Fri, 20th May 2016 11:28 am
A view from an ivory tower. Please vacation in Bangladesh or perhaps Venezuela to get the complete story on the machinations of human fertility practices. And no, humans aren’t cockroaches to whom I apologize to. I agree with Apey that we are a malignant, nest fouling virus that modern antibiotics can no longer eradicate.
Jerry McManus on Fri, 20th May 2016 11:33 am
“Demographers do not completely understand why this is the case.”
Gotta call BS on this. Well…, the whole article is a steaming pile, really, but the “falling fertility” thing is well understood.
As a society industrializes, urbanizes and, hopefully, becomes more affluent then the amount of time, effort, and education that goes into raising a child goes way up.
This puts a perfectly natural pressure on families to have fewer but higher “quality” (for lack of a better word) children.
The elephant in the room that the author is obviously ignoring is that the current population was paid for with copious quantities of fossil sunlight, a resource that is notorious for being non-renewable and easily depleted.
The current population blew right past the “sustainable” off ramp almost 40 years ago now, back when it was a relatively comfortable 4 billion.
As our energy supplies collapse so too will our ability to cope with pesky details like healthy food and fresh water.
Not to mention all of that newly liberated carbon getting busy throwing our climate totally out of whack.
Yes, the population problem will “solve itself”, but it most certainly will not be pretty.
Bob Owens on Fri, 20th May 2016 11:52 am
The world is so overpopulated that a reduction of 50% to 90% in our numbers is required to approach conditions for a stable world. The small population reductions pointed to in the article are like putting a band-aid on a broken Femur. China, with its 1 family 1 child policy, was only able to make the smallest of dents in population growth. No, Nature is going to call an end to this nonsense, sooner rather than later, I fear.
Apneaman on Fri, 20th May 2016 12:18 pm
Here is his bullshit
“The human behavioral ecology (HBE) model insists that there must be an evolutionary advantage to limiting fertility.”
Models don’t insist anything or claim “must be”.
That would be religion.
Models indicate, suggest, might be, possible, etc.
In science nothing is ever settled, even evolution and gravity are still falsifiable as long as someone comes up with convincing evidence to disprove them.
Most of the humans have a deep seated need for certainties and science does not deal in certainties. It is counter intuitive for most humans, but oh how they love all the wonderful toys it produces.
Dredd on Fri, 20th May 2016 12:25 pm
“… I simply do not understand …”
“Don’t be so hard on yourself grasshopper, of course you are not a cockroach.” – The Master
Now go fix the seaports (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports – 6).
Apneaman on Fri, 20th May 2016 12:33 pm
American Council on Science and Health is nothing but a corporate propagandist organization. IOW hired lairs. If I got paid for all the shills I have exposed on this site I’d be eating more ice cream.
American Council on Science and Health
“Funding
The Scaife Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation provided ACSH’s first financial support in the 1970s.[4] In her address on the 25th Anniversary of ACSH, Dr. Whelan noted that their critics such as Phil Donahue and Barbara Walters accused them of being a “surrogate” of the petrochemical industry and a “shill” for the food industry.[4] To appease their critics, ACSH only accepted funding from private foundations for two years. However, as the media continued to indicate that ACSH was industry-supported, the Board decided on a fundraising policy through which “about 40% of ACSH [funding] comes from private foundations, about 40% from corporations, and the rest of the sale of ACSH publications.”[4]
In the early 1990s, ACSH decided to stop reporting its funding.[32] Their 1991 report shows that many corporations contributed funds.[32] As of 2005, they had received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.[33] Whelan told John Tierney of the New York Times in 2007 that “ACSH has a diverse funding base – we receive donations from private foundations and individuals and unrestricted (usually very small) grants from corporations. The fastest-growing segment of our funding base is individual consumers who are sick and tired of the almost daily baseless scares – and they write us checks to help support our work.”[34] In 2010, Whelan told The New Yorker that about a third of the organization’s two million dollar annual budget comes from industry.[35]
But in 2013, Mother Jones magazine received leaked internal financial documents from ACSH, which revealed that 58% of the organization’s donations in the period from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012 came from corporations and large private foundations, many of which themselves had close ties to industries with financial stakes in the specific issues on which ACSH issues industry-favorable opinions.[2] In addition, the documents revealed that the organization had on numerous occasions directly solicited donations from industry sources on the basis of projected reports on the specific issues in which those companies and industry organizations had such a stake.[2] Similarly, in a 1992 internal memo by Whelan disclosed by Consumer Reports, Whelan directed her staff to “ask McNeil Specialty for $10,000 toward sweetener paper” and disclosed that her staff would seek “more CCC [Calorie Control Council] money … to help us get new sweetener booklet out.”[36] McNeil Specialty Products (now McNeil Nutritionals) owns the U.S. marketing rights to Splenda, the branded name of the artificial sweetener sucralose; the Calorie Control Council is an industry trade association for producers of artificial sweeteners, fat substitutes, and low-calorie foods. The same memo instructs that staffers give “special attention” to “Mr. McDermott at Searle about meat money.”[36] Thomas McDermott was shortly to become director of biotechnology communications for the agricultural biotechnology firm Monsanto; G.D. Searle was a Monsanto subsidiary, subsequently acquired by Pfizer.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health#Tobacco
Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group
The American Council on Science and Health defends fracking, BPA, and pesticides. Guess who their funders are.
“The American Council on Science and Health bills itself as an independent research and advocacy organization devoted to debunking “junk science.” It’s a controversial outfit—a “group of scientists…concerned that many important public policies related to health and the environment did not have a sound scientific basis,” it says—that often does battle with environmentalists and consumer safety advocates, wading into public health debates to defend fracking, to fight New York City’s attempt to ban big sugary sodas, and to dismiss concerns about the potential harms of the chemical bisphenol-A (better known at BPA) and the pesticide atrazine. The group insists that its conclusions are driven purely by science. It acknowledges that it receives some financial support from corporations and industry groups, but ACSH, which reportedly stopped disclosing its corporate donors two decades ago, maintains that these contributions don’t influence its work and agenda.”
“Yet internal financial documents (read them here) provided to Mother Jones show that ACSH depends heavily on funding from corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates it aims to shape. The group also directly solicits donations from these industry sources around specific issues. ACSH’s financial links to corporations involved in hot-button health and safety controversies have been highlighted in the past, but these documents offer a more extensive accounting of ACSH’s reliance on industry money—giving a rare window into the operations of a prominent and frequent defender of industry in the science wars.”
more
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising
Tons of dirt here.
SOURCE WATCH
“Ties to the Koch Brothers
ACSH has received significant funding from the Koch family foundations as well as other funding organizations with ties to the Koch brothers. The Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation donated $95,000 between 2005 and 2008,[108][109][110][111][112] and the David H. Koch Foundation gave ACSH $6,000 from 1986 to 1987.[19][113]”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
Lawfish1964 on Fri, 20th May 2016 12:52 pm
Jerry, the children I see coming out these days are hardly higher “quality.” Perhaps it’s environmental rather than biological, but I see a bunch of fat, lazy, dependent, entitled brats. Content to eat Cheetos and stare at a screen 24/7.
It’s way past time to thin the herd.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 1:01 pm
Hey lawfish, you must have missed the article I posted on here a few months back that tie pollution to obesity, and diabetees, and autism and lower intelligence and and and. They do a good job at not needing to drive around as much as previous generations seeing how they are content to watch a screen.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 1:03 pm
But yeah those entitled fucks who wont have a livable habitat or social security, bunch of ungrateful…
Apneaman on Fri, 20th May 2016 1:58 pm
Those kids are irritating to be around sometimes, but they are surely a by product of late/last stage neo liberal capitalistic techno society. Yes their parents own some off the responsibility, but that generation is a by product of the toxic culture as well. It’s becoming a global phenomena in countries that practice/worship the neo liberal doctrine. Kids in Japan are way far gone.
Around 1 million Japanese lock themselves in bedrooms and will not come out
THEY are known as Japan’s “lost generation” or “invisible youth”.
“No longer able to face society, they have locked themselves in their bedrooms and refuse to exist in the outside world. There is thought to be nearly 1 million of them in the country and they are called hikikomori.
The name relates to the condition from which the members of this group appear to suffer.
The trend of young Japanese, predominantly males, locking themselves away is causing very worrying social and health problems for the country and is mystifying mental health experts.
Yuto Onishi, now 18, spent nearly three years as a shut-in as he excommunicated himself from friends and family. Living in his bedroom, he would sleep during the day, surf online and read comics at night — occasionally slinking out to get some food.
“Once you experience it, you lose reality,” Mr Onishi told the ABC’s 7.30this week.
“I knew it was abnormal but I didn’t want to change … It felt safe,” he said.”
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/around-1million-japanese-lock-themselves-in-bedrooms-and-will-not-come-out/news-story/50ee16e8e54d84ae11405795e4fbb111
PracticalMaina on Fri, 20th May 2016 2:38 pm
Apneaman, reminds me of a short story by Ray Bradburys called The Velde. Children are raised by a virtual reality capable automated house, the end result is not good.
Harry Hunnicutt on Fri, 20th May 2016 3:51 pm
Thing is – the world can’t BECOME over-populated because it is ALREADY overpopulated. We don’t have a climate crisis – we already have a population crisis. The lefties are in denial about the population crisis because the burgeoning poor population is their support base. Instead they create a phony climate crisis to avoid having to deal with the real population crisis.
Lawfish1964 on Fri, 20th May 2016 3:52 pm
I agree, PracticalMania that we’re giving them a shit world to inherit. But personally, I have no expectation of receiving social security despite having paid it my entire career. I made the baby-boomer generation by 15 days. I sure don’t feel like a boomer.
To make up for that kind of crap, I’m making sure my kids inherit a house that’s been prepared for the future of little to no oil. Lots of fruit trees, chicken coops, gardens with quality soil, etc. And it will be free and clear. My attempt to give them a fighting chance.
peakyeast on Fri, 20th May 2016 4:06 pm
This shows that high education and advanced degrees is no insurance that the person is actually intelligent and has an ability to connect dots outside their field – nor I suppose within their field.
He probably purchased he degrees at a carnival or perhaps its just dementia creeping up on him – since it seems like he lives way in the past.
bug on Fri, 20th May 2016 4:51 pm
Harry, so do righties fear over population? They want the population to go down?
Seems righties, i.e. churchies want population to explode with condemning birth control and abortion?
Don’t righties wanted more people as they will buy more shit and help the economy grow?
Sissyfuss on Fri, 20th May 2016 7:20 pm
Gee Harry, phony climate crisis huh? Fox News, right?
Davy on Fri, 20th May 2016 7:31 pm
This article pretty much misses the mark completely. Populations must be reduced to 1BIL or less within a few generations or sooner. It is insufficient to adjust birth rates and get to this 1BIL. There must be excess deaths as part of the equation. The numbers we are dealing with are huge and horrific. If we want to get to 1BIL in 75 years we need an average excess death rate of 100MIL per year. This is an average so there will be a bulge of deaths at around double these numbers at some point. This is just doing the math so who knows how this will play out but it surely will If you understand peak oil dynamics, runaway climate change, the decaying global economy and declining food production. If you understand these systematic variables you realize we are quickly entering a dangerous zone of disruption. Our forced degrowth will begin soon and not end for the next several generations
roman on Fri, 20th May 2016 7:33 pm
It doesn’t matter if there is one homo left or a trillion. You are all worthless scum wallowing in your own scum on your scummy planet.
makati1 on Fri, 20th May 2016 7:47 pm
“World Population Will Stabilize Because Humans Aren’t Cockroaches”
More government funded bullshit…
JuanP on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:06 pm
Apnea, I’ve been reading up on the japanese hikikomori phenomenon for more than 20 years. I have considered myself a hikikomori for that long. The oldest hikikomoris are in their late 40s and have been like this for over 20 years. I consider personal interactions with humans an almost certain waste of my time and energy, and have been socially maladjusted since kindergarten.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
JuanP on Fri, 20th May 2016 9:20 pm
What a load of crap. There was a time when fools like this made me angry, now they make me laugh. Russia has Europe’s highest fertility rate right now. Russia also receives more immigrants than any other country in the world except the USA. Russia’s population level is esentially stable. That meme of Russia’s future fast declining population is very 20th century and completely inaccurate.
Me on Sun, 22nd May 2016 1:01 am
“Humans appear to be the only organism that actually reproduces less as resources become more available.”
It is already well understood why this the case. As living standards rise (as more resources / technology comes available), the need for more children becomes less important.
Whoever wrote this article did a shit-job researching it.
Kenz300 on Sun, 22nd May 2016 4:45 am
Too many people demand too many resources……yet the worlds population grows by 80 million every year…..
How many charities are dealing with the same problems they were dealing with 10 or 20 years ago with no end in sight. Every problem is made worse by the worlds growing population. IF you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm
Kenz300 on Sun, 22nd May 2016 4:46 am
The worlds poorest people are having the most children. They have not figured out the connection between their poverty and family size. Endless population growth is not sustainable. If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm