DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I wasn't even talking about life, I was (we were) talking about just the environment for life.

oh, that has to be relatively common, if you wish to limit it to a temperate environment with adequate supplies of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen to form the building blocks.(note: by 'relatively common' I might speculate on the order of maybe 1 in ten million potential planets, in a Universe that could easily contain a trillion planets).

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:So called overpopulation is not a problem, neither are limited resources (what ever that means), though it require that Government stay out and let the market operate.

so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?

Irrelevant question.

really? You claim overpopulation isn't a problem. If so, my question should be critical....a what point do you think human population of the Earth is a problem?

How can a population grow past its own foundation?

easily, it happens all the time, and then the population goes through a dramatic crash. There is a whole field, called Population Dynamics, that deals with the study of these things. Humans, unfortunately perhaps, have the capacity to overpopulate to the point where they destroy other species' ability to survive the process, and thus can lead to a complete, irreversable decimation of our 'foundation', or ecosystem, if one prefers that term.

You didn't answer my question.

An increase in the population happens because fewer children dies, which mean the foundation for the growth comes first, not after. It's not like the population grow first, then we must find a way to feed them.
If we, however, should face a situation where the food supply goes down, then it's important to have prices that are free to adjust, and can reflect these shortages by a price increase. Higher prices encourage production, more land will then be diverted to food production instead of less valuable activity. Furthermore, higher prices will encourage technological development, and find more efficient production methods. Ultimately, as production increase, prices comes down again.
Far less land is devoted to agriculture today than hundred years ago, even though the population is far greater. That's why Malthus was wrong about his prediction, made in An Essay on the Principle of Population 1798, that the population would grow past our food productivity. Not only didn't he consider the technological aspect, but neither the fact that the food supply grow first, then the population.

Another thing one must consider is the effect economic development has on the population growth.

The reason poor countries has more children is because it's more economically efficient - they need more people to increase their productivity. However, at first, economic progress in poor countries is not shown, because, as the economy grows so does the population. That's why often stats shows no economic progress. This mean it's not overpopulation that is the problem in poor countries, it's their productivity. If one cut down the population, one cut down their productivity as well, and they are actually worse off. Fewer people means less ability to accumulate capital so to speak - more people, the opposite. But, to get to my point, at some point the accumulation of capital reach a point in which one guy is more productive than many. At that point people will have less children.
For a population to be stable, every woman need to give birth to two children. Which mean there are as many children as there are parents, thus a stable population. In the west today I think every woman have on average 1,7 children, which give us a decreasing population. I'm not sure about Asia and how many children per woman, but it's above 2,0. However, as their economy grows, their rate of birth will go down, and world population will peak and then stagnate, and maybe go down.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I wasn't even talking about life, I was (we were) talking about just the environment for life.

oh, that has to be relatively common, if you wish to limit it to a temperate environment with adequate supplies of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen to form the building blocks.(note: by 'relatively common' I might speculate on the order of maybe 1 in ten million potential planets, in a Universe that could easily contain a trillion planets).

So we've gone from faith that life on earth--the only life we know of--is not unique in the universe, back to impressions of relatively moderate complexity of what is needed to allow for it environmentally. I'll get back to you when I've rediscovered my source for probability of earth-like bodies in the universe.

LEON wrote: An increase in the population happens because fewer children dies, which mean the foundation for the growth comes first, not after. It's not like the population grow first, then we must find a way to feed them.

not really, it occurs when breeding becomes supported, AND the death rate of mature adults drops, in most cases.And, when the population of young members spikes, the food demand doesn't peak until MUCH later.

If we, however, should face a situation where the food supply goes down, then it's important to have prices that are free to adjust, and can reflect these shortages by a price increase. Higher prices encourage production, more land will then be diverted to food production instead of less valuable activity. Furthermore, higher prices will encourage technological development, and find more efficient production methods. Ultimately, as production increase, prices comes down again.

there you go again, trying to tie basic biology to economic theory. Dude, prices don't matter if you are an aardvark, for instance. The population dynamics still work the same way.

Far less land is devoted to agriculture today than hundred years ago, even though the population is far greater. That's why Malthus was wrong about his prediction, made in An Essay on the Principle of Population 1798, that the population would grow past our food productivity. Not only didn't he consider the technological aspect, but neither the fact that the food supply grow first, then the population.

obviously, technology and other aspects of productivity in agriculture play a role, but the loss of agricultural land may still come back to bite us, badly. I suppose, on that score, I am prejudiced, as my family has been pretty strongly involved with US farmland preservation for over a half-century.

Another thing one must consider is the effect economic development has on the population growth.

once again, how does this matter to a panda bear? You keep equating everything to economics, but you're trying to assess a BIOLOGICAL imperative.

The reason poor countries has more children is because it's more economically efficient - they need more people to increase their productivity. However, at first, economic progress in poor countries is not shown, because, as the economy grows so does the population. That's why often stats shows no economic progress. This mean it's not overpopulation that is the problem in poor countries, it's their productivity. If one cut down the population, one cut down their productivity as well, and they are actually worse off. Fewer people means less ability to accumulate capital so to speak - more people, the opposite. But, to get to my point, at some point the accumulation of capital reach a point in which one guy is more productive than many. At that point people will have less children.
For a population to be stable, every woman need to give birth to two children. Which mean there are as many children as there are parents, thus a stable population. In the west today I think every woman have on average 1,7 children, which give us a decreasing population. I'm not sure about Asia and how many children per woman, but it's above 2,0. However, as their economy grows, their rate of birth will go down, and world population will peak and then stagnate, and maybe go down.

but, nature doesn't see 'countries' poor or rich, it is ONE BIG ECOSYSTEM, hence, overpopulation in Asia or Africa WILL affect the system and end up having ripple effects on Norway or the US, ultimately. I repeat, this is BIOLOGY, not ECONOMICS( the former is a science, the latter a man-made concoction, hence the lack of applicability to the core issue).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I wasn't even talking about life, I was (we were) talking about just the environment for life.

oh, that has to be relatively common, if you wish to limit it to a temperate environment with adequate supplies of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen to form the building blocks.(note: by 'relatively common' I might speculate on the order of maybe 1 in ten million potential planets, in a Universe that could easily contain a trillion planets).

So we've gone from faith that life on earth--the only life we know of--is not unique in the universe, back to impressions off relatively moderate complexity of what is needed to allow for it environmentally. I'll get back to you when I've rediscovered my source for probability of earth-like bodies in the universe.

what's hilarious, Sergeant T, is that I intended this thread to discuss the role of rebellion versus authority......and can't for the life of me figure out how this got us to the current discussions. On the other hand, they have been interesting!

I think we've outdone ourselves. We have two topics running simultaneously, side-by-side that have nothing to do with the original topic!

When Columbus arrived at the shore of The New World, there was 1 - 2 million Indians in North America. Today there's 350 million people in North America. However, if one could increase the population of Indians from 2 millions to 350, and everything else stays equal, i.e. same economy and technology, then whole North America would turn into a desert, i.e. an ecological catastrophe. But as economy and technology changes so do the foundation for population as well, thus there can be 350 million people in North America today. People make the same mistake and fallacy today, when they try to look, from here, and into the future.

callmeslick wrote:

Another thing one must consider is the effect economic development has on the population growth.

once again, how does this matter to a panda bear? You keep equating everything to economics, but you're trying to assess a BIOLOGICAL imperative.

By that definition (talking about broad definition) every population can be an overpopulation. Resources are scarce and we compete to get em. Please don't use trade-offs as arguments. You fall into the nirvana fallacy. Besides, point was how a population peaks as the economy increase.

Last, you have still not understood economics, and especially price mechanism and the role that have on incentives and allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

Edit: Rest of your points is just non sequitur

Over population is a myth. A sometimes demagogued myth...but just a myth.



The planet takes care of itself.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It boggles my mind--the mind-**** involved in taking an extraordinarily remote possibility and bringing it to the place where supposedly intelligent people would be willing to make policy based upon it. The illogical nature of it all indicates clearly that there is something else at stake.

...what sort of crazy fantasy world do you live in where the act of studying planets outside of our solar system and speculating about their potential habitability implies the machinations of some secret cabal? We study these things because we're naturally curious about our universe, and because getting information about other planets tells us a bit more about how our own solar system formed, and what gave Earth the potential for the development of life. And as I've already stated, what we're learning shows that the possibility is far from "remote." We already know that our own Sun isn't anything special as far as stars go, as we can directly observe the light from literally millions of others in our galaxy. We're now learning just how many of those stars have planetary systems, including smaller terrestrial planets much like ours. Given the sheer number of extrasolar planets out there, it's no stretch at all to assume that there are those close enough to Earth that we might be able to live on them without too much trouble. When we get the long-distance space travel thing figured out, it'd be great to already have some targets to set up shop.

The chart is terribly misleading with that 40 year projection, especially considering the wild changes in the late 20th Century. It is the same trick climate deniers (and some alarmists) use. Here is that same chart in 1987: Exaggerations aside, I have read the growth rate is slowing. That's good news and I hope it continues in a healthy way. The overpopulation problem is similar to climate change in the same respect. The Earth can handle more people and it can handle higher temperatures too. The danger is the speed at which it happens. Just like species have a difficult time when their environment changes rapidly so to when populations get our of hand. And the dangers of climate change and overpopulation are similar: increased risk of famine, disease, war. Populations grow exponentially. Speed is why there are alarm calls with both population and climate change. I believe extra attention is warranted.

Also, I predict humans will reach other planets within the next 1000-2000 years. In that time we will have better detection, better propulsion, and most importantly, a better understanding of how to engineer life. We talk about planets being uninhabitable to humans today, but what about the humans of tomorrow? The gains made in bio-science over the last 20 years is staggering and there is no sign that is going to stop any time soon. Science fiction you say? We are making working organs in 3D printers already. Did anyone here even consider that a possibility 10 years ago?

Top Gun wrote:...what sort of crazy fantasy world do you live in where the act of studying planets outside of our solar system and speculating about their potential habitability implies the machinations of some secret cabal?

Oh now I'm the crazy one, am I? I'm the one that doesn't accept what ain't there as given, and I'm nuts, eh?

I never said anything against exploration or study. And again you've blown things out of proportion with "secret cabal" (enjoyable phrase, though). I said there was something else at stake--that talk of colonizing other planets does not happen because of the merits of the idea. There's a psychological aspect to this, but I think also a political one. I'm stating that you do not fully understand your own motivations, learned from others, which have taken you so far beyond reality. You accept that it's OK to make unfounded projections about colonization because that's what everyone does, but do you understand the cumulative and end-result of using ideas which have little to no foundation in reality to help shape your outlook on our lives and our world?

BTW, one of your basic problems is your use of "we"--the assuming of a union of understanding and intent just because you've learned some stuff. Consider that you may not really know why "we" do anything. All you have, until you have proven otherwise, is "I".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...that talk of colonizing other planets does not happen because of the merits of the idea.

Sure it does. We already have thousands of people would would take a one way trip to Mars just to do it. Humans will absolutely colonize other planets regardless of the reason, whether it be subtle and nuanced, blatant, or no reason at all. It's really just a matter of when. However, it think it is worth noting that the "humans" that do travel to other planets to live will be very different than you or I. Most likely, future humans will have gone through several stages of augmentation before beginning the journey, then further changes during, and finally some finishing touches as we manually speed up evolution to match the new territory. Future humans will have different lifespans and differences in respiratory, cardiovascular, and other systems -- so much so that they will eventually become rather alien to Earth.

Sure it is science fiction today, but so was airline travel at one time. And good science fiction is based on reality. We are not talking about tractor beams and laser guns, we are talking about building on already established technology.

Hehe

LEON wrote:When Columbus arrived at the shore of The New World, there was 1 - 2 million Indians in North America. Today there's 350 million people in North America. However, if one could increase the population of Indians from 2 millions to 350, and everything else stays equal, i.e. same economy and technology, then whole North America would turn into a desert, i.e. an ecological catastrophe. But as economy and technology changes so do the foundation for population as well, thus there can be 350 million people in North America today. People make the same mistake and fallacy today, when they try to look, from here, and into the future.

of course, there were developments around progress(and despite your assumptions, there is no reason to expect that the Native Americans would have avoided all progress. Nor is there any reason to assume as you do that they would have turned it into a desert.

By that definition (talking about broad definition) every population can be an overpopulation. Resources are scarce and we compete to get em. Please don't use trade-offs as arguments. You fall into the nirvana fallacy. Besides, point was how a population peaks as the economy increase.

that was but YOUR point, and I suggest it is irrelevant if the topic(which was the topic) is the ultimate threat of overpopulation.

Last, you have still not understood economics, and especially price mechanism and the role that have on incentives and allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

likely true, but the discussion was around OVERPOPULATION threats, which require knowledge of biology to understand in any way. Whether I understand economics is about as germane to that discussion as whether I understand Etruscan pottery making.

Will Robinson wrote:Over population is a myth. A sometimes demagogued myth...but just a myth.



The planet takes care of itself.

ummm. this reminds me of a deficit chart you once posted. Note, please, Will, that the population is still growing, just not at quite as high a rate. That means that the population could still hit a tipping point, and nothing in that chart suggests otherwise.

The population surge peaked. The cause for it isn't a constant. Fertility is in decline now.
Certain areas have crowding but that isn't the same as a population spreading to a planetary disaster as the often touted "overpopulation" is trotted out to imply. Growth does not necessarily equal inevitable 'over' growth.

If you were talking about crowding fine, I see that, but that is an altogether different situation and human nature, as well as Mother Nature will take care of that.
I doubt you can find credible science to support 'world overpopulation' in the context most people take that kind of comment to mean. Everything I found says otherwise.

This place needs negative growth in human population.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:When Columbus arrived at the shore of The New World, there was 1 - 2 million Indians in North America. Today there's 350 million people in North America. However, if one could increase the population of Indians from 2 millions to 350, and everything else stays equal, i.e. same economy and technology, then whole North America would turn into a desert, i.e. an ecological catastrophe. But as economy and technology changes so do the foundation for population as well, thus there can be 350 million people in North America today. People make the same mistake and fallacy today, when they try to look, from here, and into the future.

of course, there were developments around progress(and despite your assumptions, there is no reason to expect that the Native Americans would have avoided all progress. Nor is there any reason to assume as you do that they would have turned it into a desert.

By that definition (talking about broad definition) every population can be an overpopulation. Resources are scarce and we compete to get em. Please don't use trade-offs as arguments. You fall into the nirvana fallacy. Besides, point was how a population peaks as the economy increase.

that was but YOUR point, and I suggest it is irrelevant if the topic(which was the topic) is the ultimate threat of overpopulation.

Last, you have still not understood economics, and especially price mechanism and the role that have on incentives and allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

likely true, but the discussion was around OVERPOPULATION threats, which require knowledge of biology to understand in any way. Whether I understand economics is about as germane to that discussion as whether I understand Etruscan pottery making.

(Your quote in green, mine in red)

Do you have no understanding slick? "(...)there is no reason to expect that the Native Americans would have avoided all progress (...)" What on earth does that got to do with anything I wrote?!

You might wanna read this; "if one could increase the population of Indians from 2 millions to 350, and everything else stays equal, i.e. same economy and technology" (Everything else stays equal. Do you remember? - Ceteris Parabus.) Then the pressure on Americas resources would be too great. I didn't make any statement about Indians and what they might or might not have done in reality.

Point is! Your first question in this discussion; "so, in your mind, the Earth can support how many people?" A question which I said is irrelevant, which is shown in my North American Indian population analogy. Your question is like; How many people can North America support? 2 millions or 350 millions? Back then it could support 2 millions, today it can support 350 millions. It all depends on many things, thus the question is irrelevant. In the future America might support a population of 700 millions.
It is amazing that I need to explain and clarify all this. Can you stop treat analogies as concretes. You even say yourselves - progress. Yes, can you please extend that thought to our present day as well, or, is it like progress is at complete halt?

You wrote; "that was but YOUR point, and I suggest it is irrelevant if the topic(which was the topic) is the ultimate threat of overpopulation." The fact that economic development halt population growth is irrelevant to the topic of overpopulation??!!! Really? I don't know what to say.

Overpopulation is a question about economics. Whether we run short on resources, or population grows and make resources more scarce, is the same mechanics. Have you already forgot my water in the desert analogy? The fact that we need water is biology, yes. However, whether we have water or not, is a question of economy. Reason we have economics is because resources are scarce. If there were no scarcity, economics wouldn't be necessary. We must economize the water supply in a desert, because it's scarce. We doesn't need to economize on air, because air is of abundance supply
Like couple of years ago, we had butter shortage here in Norway. The government said it was because of increased demand for butter due to low carbo diet, and because of last summers rain, which gave a lower quality on the milk fat. Both are wrong. We had shortage because the price of butter is fixed. As we ran short, no price signals gave us any information on the shortages. A increased price had led to two things; lower consumption and higher production, then the shortages had been prevented.

This story from reality is illustrative, and funny: When a Spanish blockade in the sixteenth century tried to starve Spain's rebellious subjects in Antwerp into surrender, the resulting high prices of food within Antwerp caused others to smuggle food into the city, even through the blockade, enabling the inhabitants to continue to hold out. However, the authorities within Antwerp decided to solve the problem of high food prices by laws fixing the maximum price to be allowed to be charged for given food items and providing severe penalties for anyone violating those laws. There followed the classic consequences of price control--a larger consumption of the artificially lower-priced goods and a reduction in the supply of such goods, since suppliers were less willing to run the risk of sending food through the Spanish blockade without the additional incentive of higher prices. Therefore, the net effect of price control was that "the city lived in high spirits until all at once provisions gave out" and Antwerp had no choice but to surrender to the Spaniards.

Point is, as a population grows so will demand for food, and as the price increase more resources will be diverted from less valuable uses and into food production. For instance, if demand for food and food prices increase, then, for instance a cotton farmer, is incentivized to change his production from cotton to wheat, or what ever. All he sees is that cotton prices goes down, and wheat prices goes up, his motivation is just that he wanna make more money. Whether we divert golf fields or cut down more woods doesn't matter, point is how resources are allocated through price mechanism.
Higher prices will also encourages technological development - more efficient ways to produce food, i.e. better machinery, crops that need less water, less sun light, more resistant against weather; temperature; insects, gives more seed per plant, etc, etc. Which again will require less land.

We don't kill eagles, we actually protect them. On the other hand, we kill more chicken than anything else - still, eagles are few and chickens are many.

Humans means of survival is his mind and consciousness, unless we are losing that faculty there's no problems. I friend of mine once claimed; if every person in India owned a bed and a chair each, there wouldn't be one tree left in whole India. As a contrast to all the things we have. What he failed to understand is economics. If India starts to run short on trees, the price on trees would increase. Imagine if there was only one tree left, that tree would be so expensive and valuable that no one could afford it. But long before that happens, forest owners would start to replant trees, only cut down older trees, and make sure there's enough trees left for further consumption. All incetivized by price mechanics. That's why we don't run short on chickens in the above example as well.
However, if the forest is collectively owned, then everybody will cut down trees to themselves and nobody have incentives to replant, thus there will be a tree shortages. As what happened on Easter Islands. At least according to their theory. This is, in short, The Tragedy of the Commons.

Last; callmeslick, make an argument. Don't just say this has nothing to do with economics, and no explanation. If you don't understand economics, how can you make such a claim? We're at the same point where we were last time, theory vs complex reality. You cannot just claim that and expect that to be an argument. That would be like if I refute your claim about biology, and nothing else. I claim it's economy, you say no, it's about biology. Then we can continue like that forever. Is that a discussion?
Economics is a real thing, it's derived from scarcity, and is governed by natural laws. If we have price volatility and the government force that price to be stable, then the effect will leak out in either too many goods, which is wasteful, or a shortage on goods, which gives us long waiting lines. We cannot escape the laws of economics.

Will Robinson wrote:The population surge peaked. The cause for it isn't a constant. Fertility is in decline now.

It's still too early to project that long term, though I agree it looks appealing. It will probably hold easily if the global economy remains sluggish. However, there is still the problem of the billions of people already here abusing the resources we have.

Will Robinson wrote:Certain areas have crowding ...but that is an altogether different situation and human nature, as well as Mother Nature will take care of that.

This is exactly the kind of thing we would like to avoid; wars and famine. I don't have a Malthusian view of population growth. I've said this before in another thread. Yes there is plenty of physical space for people on Earth, but no one is building sub divisions in Antarctica for obvious reasons. We crowd around the resources. The danger stems from the fact population grows exponentially, even if the growth rate slows significantly. Within one generation we could see an increase of billions. Again, the danger is not being able to keep up with demand. We are already have problems with food and water. And as people claim land for agriculture we do damage to existing ecosystems (example: cutting down rainforest and/or diverting water for irrigation). All these things also contribute to climate change too. It is not hard to imagine drought turned famine where hundreds of millions starve and many millions die from related wars. This is the catastrophe I'm talking about and I think it is worth considerable effort to avoid because of it's likelihood. I'm fairly optimistic though.

LEON wrote:Just to give you some pointers, environmental destruction was far more present in places like old Soviet and communist China, where there was no market operating, thus creating shortages and overuse of resources. In philosophy it's called 'tragedy of the commons' - what nobody owns (same as collectively owned), no one takes care of either.

What do you blame for the environmental crisis in modern China then?

And who do you think should own and take care of environmental resources like air?

Jeff250 wrote:

LEON wrote:Just to give you some pointers, environmental destruction was far more present in places like old Soviet and communist China, where there was no market operating, thus creating shortages and overuse of resources. In philosophy it's called 'tragedy of the commons' - what nobody owns (same as collectively owned), no one takes care of either.

What do you blame for the environmental crisis in modern China then?

And who do you think should own and take care of environmental resources like air?

China is still controlled centrally by communists. Their government still move whole villages, build complete new cities where nobody lives, cut down all the trees on hill sides, to build steps of farming (dunno what one calls it in English), which make the soil creep down the valley and into the river, and make trouble down the stream, and so forth.

However, one always have trade-offs. For instance, when we start to cook on fire, we got smoke in our lungs, which is not good. Question is though, should we stop using fire to protect our lungs, or is the benefit too great so we accept smoke in our lungs. It's just a consideration of trade-offs.
As our development goes further we find better and better ways to maintain ourselves, which remove past trade-offs - smoke in our lungs is not a problem anymore - but of course, we make new ones. As our machinery gets more and more efficient, and our accumulation of capital increases, we have cleaner technology today than 100 years ago, and cleaner water, air, food, etc, which result in a higher life expectancy.
We, in the west, have been through this development of capital and technology, and are still developing. Now, as developing countries make the same steps, like China and India, they lag behind our capital accumulation thus they pollute more than us, but also, they must make the same consideration of trade-offs that we did back when we developed. And of course they will also develop past that level, and even faster than us, because we have already done that tour before them. Next out is Africa.

However, one must compare. Why does everybody who question free market fall into the nirvana fallacy. China used to have serious environmental disasters and famines that killed several million people. Since the 70's, when the economy was loosen up, China has lifted far more poor people up from poverty, and faster, than anything else in history. Sometimes as much as 2 million people per month. The left should celebrate.

How to protect our air quality is a good question. At the moment both the sea and the air is pretty much treated as common property, and thus pollution happen as well. Though I don't think there's an alarming crises.
I believe a stronger sense of property rights is a way to go. Like tall factory chimneys is from a time where property rights were strong. Something they did to prevent lawsuits from citizens who had gotten their property polluted. But, as time went, and government intervened in the economy, GDP became more important than some citizens property rights, and those rights declined and became less important. Sort of the same consideration one made back when we got smoke in our lungs.
We should privatize the forest, water supply and the sea (like the sea bottom which I believe have lots of potential resources). Then those things would be taken care of.
I know Murray Rothbard, and maybe Walter Block, have written much on free market and protection of the air. I haven't read their writings so I'm not sure how their arguments goes. But, as I know they are both supporters of property rights, I'm sure that is their starting point as well.

LEON wrote:[Last; callmeslick, make an argument.

I have made the argument that population dynamics has little to do with economics, and you keep blathering on about economics. This is a biological issue, pure and simple.

Don't just say this has nothing to do with economics, and no explanation. If you don't understand economics, how can you make such a claim?

I didn't say I don't understand economics, I said it doesn't apply here.

We're at the same point where we were last time, theory vs complex reality. You cannot just claim that and expect that to be an argument. That would be like if I refute your claim about biology, and nothing else. I claim it's economy, you say no, it's about biology. Then we can continue like that forever. Is that a discussion?
Economics is a real thing, it's derived from scarcity, and is governed by natural laws. If we have price volatility and the government force that price to be stable, then the effect will leak out in either too many goods, which is wasteful, or a shortage on goods, which gives us long waiting lines. We cannot escape the laws of economics.

fine, discuss scarcity of resources in terms of economic impact. But, if you are talking about the REAL issues around overpopulation of humans on planet Earth, you have to understand the complexities of population dynamics, NOT merely economics. You have seemingly shown yourself to merely try to apply a single discipline(economics) to EVERY issue, and at that, a very narrow and untested theory of economics, frequently enough. The issues and problems of the world are diverse, and entail ALL the sciences and most of the social sciences as well. It isn't about me lacking understanding, it is about you failing to apply a well-rounded knowledge set.

LEON wrote:.
I believe a stronger sense of property rights is a way to go. Like tall factory chimneys is from a time where property rights were strong. Something they did to prevent lawsuits from citizens who had gotten their property polluted.

you are joking, right? Because exactly NO concern for the environment was ever shown in the industrial west until citizens demanded GOVERNMENT to act up same.

But, as time went, and government intervened in the economy, GDP became more important than some citizens property rights, and those rights declined and became less important. Sort of the same consideration one made back when we got smoke in our lungs.

ah, I see the issue, you live in a world of fantasy. Once again, there is NO evidence of this, NONE, yet you state it like it's all factual.

We should privatize the forest, water supply and the sea (like the sea bottom which I believe have lots of potential resources). Then those things would be taken care of.

nothing would be more obscene than were such a proposal to take root. It would mean that individuals would utilize such things for their benefit and not the common good. There is ample evidence that making such things PUBLIC(as in National Parkland or International treaty) have given rise to a high degree of conservation, and prevented the absolute short-term rape of resources your plan would entail.

I know Murray Rothbard, and maybe Walter Block, have written much on free market and protection of the air. I haven't read their writings so I'm not sure how their arguments goes. But, as I know they are both supporters of property rights, I'm sure that is their starting point as well.

oh, goody, let's have a handful of well-off investors own the air, too. How nice, and thoughtful of you.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote: I have made the argument that population dynamics has little to do with economics, and you keep blathering on about economics. This is a biological issue, pure and simple.

Do you know the difference between an argument and a statement?

If I claim population growth are due to quantum physics. Have I made an argument?

Is; "No that has nothing to do with economics" an argument?

If I say "That has nothing to do with biology", is that an argument?

Frankly, I think I wasting my time here writing as much as I do.

Here, did you read this?

We don't kill eagles, we actually protect them. On the other hand, we kill more chicken than anything else - still, eagles are few and chickens are many.

Eagles are protected by the state, chickens are private property.

This a the principal of property dynamics. This is all we need to know. Please leave concretes out of this.

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote: I have made the argument that population dynamics has little to do with economics, and you keep blathering on about economics. This is a biological issue, pure and simple.

Do you know the difference between an argument and a statement?

If I claim population growth are due to quantum physics. Have I made an argument?

Is; "No that has nothing to do with economics" an argument?

If I say "That has nothing to do with biology", is that an argument?

Frankly, I think I wasting my time here writing as much as I do.

If you say you wish to have a discussion about treating heart disease, and then claiming that one needs to apply the study of French Literature to the issue, that isn't an agument, it is a mistake. We were discussion overpopulation of the Earth, you claimed that overpopulation wasn't a problem. I questioned that statement, with the question of what level of human beings WOULD be too many. You have since utilized the topic as yet another soapbox for the ill-conceived application of a dubious track of macro-economic theory to a completely unrelated issue(the effect of economics upon the limitation of population). Perhaps you are wasting your time writing, before thinking about the specific problems being addressed, or trying to view issues as matters for more than one field of expertise to address. Sure, you understand aspects of economics, but I trust you have SOME grasp of history, sociology, chemistry and biology.....most University educated people do. Apply those from time to time.

Where is your complex understanding of reality?

How many times must I mention The tragedy of the commons. What is privately owned is taken care off, what is collectively owned is not.

As you do not make arguments yourselves, you don't read, or if you do, you don't understand my arguments.

LEON wrote:Here, did you read this?

We don't kill eagles, we actually protect them. On the other hand, we kill more chicken than anything else - still, eagles are few and chickens are many.

Eagles are protected by the state, chickens are private property.

This a the principal of property dynamics. This is all we need to know. Please leave concretes out of this.

we breed chickens for food, and they also breed more rapidly than raptors, due to species variations. So what? However, Eagles are a great example. Before government intervention, the American Bald Eagle was headed to extinction. With strong Governmental intervention, and purchase of vast amounts of public lands to maintain habitats, I now see them regularly. Now,if people could OWN Eagles, would the population increase? Yes, but only in captivity, hence, rendering them not true, hunting raptors at all. Still playing economic games, I see. Try taking your flocks of chickens and expanding them until they consume the grain supply we currently ship to starving people, and see how that works.

LEON wrote:Where is your complex understanding of reality?

right here, with me....I am rooted in reality.

How many times must I mention The tragedy of the commons. What is privately owned is taken care off, what is collectively owned is not.

you repeating it makes it boring, not true. I disagree with something you 'claim' to be fact. There is no shortage of examples of public holdings being well cared for, and in fact, I just cited one above(The American Bald Eagle, and the vast public lands they nest upon).

As you do not make arguments yourselves, you don't read, or if you do, you don't understand my arguments.

I read, and understand your arguments, but far too often they rely on 'facts' which are not true, and are rooted in a bogus economic theory resting upon the goodness of human greed. Sorry, I'm not on board with that, LEON.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:(...) to apply the study of French Literature to the issue, (...)

As you don't understand analogies, you can't make examples either. You choose french literature, because you know what that is. But since you don't know what economics is, you have no clue whether that is important in question about population or not.

What if your karate teacher told you to wax his car and paint his fence. Would you still protest, because that, in your view, has nothing to do with karate.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:Here, did you read this?

We don't kill eagles, we actually protect them. On the other hand, we kill more chicken than anything else - still, eagles are few and chickens are many.

Eagles are protected by the state, chickens are private property.

This a the principal of property dynamics. This is all we need to know. Please leave concretes out of this.

we breed chickens for food, and they also breed more rapidly than raptors, due to species variations. So what? However, Eagles are a great example. Before government intervention, the American Bald Eagle was headed to extinction. With strong Governmental intervention, and purchase of vast amounts of public lands to maintain habitats, I now see them regularly. Now,if people could OWN Eagles, would the population increase? Yes, but only in captivity, hence, rendering them not true, hunting raptors at all. Still playing economic games, I see. Try taking your flocks of chickens and expanding them until they consume the grain supply we currently ship to starving people, and see how that works.

This is hilarious, I told you not to go into concretes, and the first thing you do ... yeah guess what ... you make a concrete.

Sorry slick, but there's a whole world here that you don't know even exist.

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:(...) to apply the study of French Literature to the issue, (...)

As you don't understand analogies, you can't make examples either. You choose french literature, because you know what that is. But since you don't know what economics is, you have no clue whether that is important in question about population or not.

merely because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I 'don't understand economics'. I both grasp it, practice it successfully in practical terms and have learned from the prior 5 generations of bank owners in my family. Give it a rest.

What if your karate teacher told you to wax his car and paint his fence. Would you still protest, because that, in your view, has nothing to do with karate.

well, I don't have a karate instructor, but if I did, and he suggested we use karate to apply wax to a car or paint a fence, I'd laugh in his face.

callmeslick wrote:
well, I don't have a karate instructor, but if I did, and he suggested we use karate to apply wax to a car or paint a fence, I'd laugh in his face.

You even treated this as a concrete. I made a reference to the movie Karate Kid, the point might have gone over your head if you haven't seen that movie.

However, please answer this; Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
well, I don't have a karate instructor, but if I did, and he suggested we use karate to apply wax to a car or paint a fence, I'd laugh in his face.

You even treated this as a concrete. I made a reference to the movie Karate Kid, the point might have gone over your head if you haven't seen that movie.

However, please answer this; Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?

No, not an absolute. They are different. When I see a man who can pass a basketball-sized object through a small bodily orifice without crumpling into a non-functional heap(something childbearing women do routinely), I'll consider giving us males the nod. Until then, men are, on average, physically larger, but not necessarily 'stronger'.

callmeslick wrote:

LEON wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
well, I don't have a karate instructor, but if I did, and he suggested we use karate to apply wax to a car or paint a fence, I'd laugh in his face.

You even treated this as a concrete. I made a reference to the movie Karate Kid, the point might have gone over your head if you haven't seen that movie.

However, please answer this; Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?

No, not an absolute. They are different. When I see a man who can pass a basketball-sized object through a small bodily orifice without crumpling into a non-functional heap(something childbearing women do routinely), I'll consider giving us males the nod. Until then, men are, on average, physically larger, but not necessarily 'stronger'.

This is important. You answer is a bit ambiguous. Let me specify, I mean strong, as in lifting things, run faster, etc. Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?

LEON wrote:This is hilarious, I told you not to go into concretes, and the first thing you do ... yeah guess what ... you make a concrete.

examples are concrete. What would you prefer? Oh, and I'm starting to see your core problem, LEON.....you suppose that you can 'tell me not to go into concretes' as if that is how one has an exchange. Let's start out with not telling others what to do, or not do, and go from there.

Sorry slick, but there's a whole world here that you don't know even exist.

concrete examples would be nice, although there is much out there which I likely don't know exists. For instance, supply side economists that actually give a rat's behind about their fellow men.

LEON wrote:This is important. You answer is a bit ambiguous.

not really, my answer is rather specific, and takes into effect the nuances of reality.

Let me specify, I mean strong, as in lifting things, run faster, etc. Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?

on a pound for pound basis? Probably not. As I stated, the average male human is larger, and thus able to move more mass. Women are less fast runners, but that has nothing to do with strength, but relates to anatomic differences. Women weightlifters can move similar mass per body weight as men, if I recall correctly. Perhaps, although I don't know your point in this example, we can see the issue between us here, LEON. I think in terms of complexity, as reality is ALWAYS complex. You think simplistically, because your 'theory' demands simplicity.

LEON, I have to head out to celebrate the miracle of my birth with the family, but leave you with this thought:
When you seek specific, yes or no answers to a question, that question has to be very, very narrowly defined. Otherwise, life offers very few clearcut, nuance-free, unambiguous answers.

callmeslick wrote: examples are concrete. What would you prefer? Oh, and I'm starting to see your core problem, LEON.....you suppose that you can 'tell me not to go into concretes' as if that is how one has an exchange. Let's start out with not telling others what to do, or not do, and go from there.

You misunderstand my point again and again. I don't try to dictate anything, only that you understand conceptual points. Concepts are abstractions, as you treat them as concretes you miss my points.

Alphabetic and phonetic reading is conceptual understanding of letters and how one interpret them. This is a simpler method and far better method than look and say method. Because when one understand phonetic reading one can read all the words that is. Look and say require that one have first seen all the words that is, and is a method of concretes.
With look and say one doesn't actually understand letters, one just recognize the word as a whole, and remember its meaning. It's like the same method of Chinese reading.

Phonetic is understanding of how one reads.

callmeslick wrote:LEON, I have to head out to celebrate the miracle of my birth with the family, but leave you with this thought:
When you seek specific, yes or no answers to a question, that question has to be very, very narrowly defined. Otherwise, life offers very few clearcut, nuance-free, unambiguous answers.

OK, congrats.

I have a point with my question, and I hope we can explore this further.