About That Overpopulation Thing (banks, definition, inflation, economy)

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by MrRational

It's a perfectly fine argument.

It could stand some editing and fleshing out of details...
but the elemental points remain valid.

Why don't you do that?
Recast his statement to be all the argument it could be.

Based on what? Humanity was in far worse condition even 200 years ago from many observable criteria. The irony is he probably did so with 1st world, 21st century standards failing to realize what now stands for the 3rd world was quite common in the West.


Now we have been competing on the basis of dumping externalities more effectively than the competition which is certainly causing destruction of "the wild", but the threat is largely not a physical one.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

If you knew anything about the middle ages you would not be asking the question. The sacking of Europe and the societal collapse that followed resulted in the loss of much of the knowledge of the time.

Then observing want and need is not sufficient to have an argument. There are lots of external and internal political forces causing havoc in the third world.

One of the results of that was the loss of methods to address sanitation which in turn resulted in mass infestation of rats, and insects spreading disease. Had the cities of Europe not been so densely populated they would not have been wallowing in their own feces and providing the breeding ground for disease.
So yes overpopulation was a significant factor in the misery of the dark ages.

To live as hunter gatherers without so much of an idea as to build a latrine yes it was over populated in the urban areas.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by MrRational

One more time:
There IS a saturation point in everything and there IS a point of diminishing returns.
I contend that we have already passed both w/r/t population and successful viability.

Others seem to think we must wait until we reach a "breaking point" before doing something.
I contend that is being absurdly and irresponsibly stupid.

That I don't want to do. We clearly don't need extra bodies. We just need to absorb what we have. The good news is that is the direction most countries are going.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Then observing want and need is not sufficient to have an argument. There are lots of external and internal political forces causing havoc in the third world. .

In many south East Asian countries, it is common for one person to be gainfully employed in a family of 10.
Please explain how adding another mouth to feed in an environment of finite employment and resources does not negatively impact the living standard of the rest of the family.
Families group together to share resources in order to survive. While this helps to ensure everyone is able to eat, it also has some detrimental impacts.
Healthcare is a major factor in overpopulated countries. Only a small minority of people are able to afford any kind of health insurance.
When a member of the family needs medical care the entire cost is borne by the family, often wiping out any moneys they have been able to save. It only takes one illness every few years to keep an entire family struggling for its very survival. As you increase the number of people in the family, you also increase the chance that one member will fall ill.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

In many south East Asian countries, it is common for one person to be gainfully employed in a family of 10.

Please cite source and country and why it applies to other countries. Please also state the impact you see this as having because it is always played on both sides. That is to say we can fit everyone in the state of Texas, but not the per capita use of resources as used in the West. That is besides the point of setting policy based on 5 standard deviations to the right of the bell curve.

Please explain how adding another mouth to feed in an environment of finite employment and resources does not negatively impact the living standard of the rest of the family.

What family?

Families group together to share resources in order to survive. While this helps to ensure everyone is able to eat, it also has some detrimental impacts.

No kidding..

Healthcare is a major factor in overpopulated countries. Only a small minority of people are able to afford any kind of health insurance.

Well then since you like to play end of the bell curve so much then how do you explain Monaco? Seeing that it is heavily populated. I suppose Nunavut is state of the art.

When a member of the family needs medical care the entire cost is borne by the family, often wiping out any moneys they have been able to save. It only takes one illness every few years to keep an entire family struggling for its very survival. As you increase the number of people in the family, you also increase the chance that one member will fall ill.

That goes to the r/K phenomena I am talking about. However in many such states the exchange values are not consistent with use values. Henry George for example specifically refuted Malthus because rent causes poverty well before the resources run out.

[DSOs]

^^The time leading up to the Irish Potato Famine (1750~1850) was a good example of decimation via mega-overpopulation/spent resources.

Originally Posted by pie_row

Demographics Too small of a working population base trying to carry to large of a non-productive population. What is needed is easy to see. Every able bodied person working at a high rate of pay. Are we going to do what it takes to see that this happens?

Here's another way: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article38898.html

[tijlover]

With the Black Plague that swept Europe, centuries ago, wiping out 1/3rd of the population, for one generation there were no lower classes. Employers, like today, couldn't intimidate their employees by saying: Don't like your job, there's a hundred applicants waiting to take your job!

This will hopefully be one plus to the lower feritility rates, fairer treatment of workers!

Another plus: returning a number of our suburbs back to farm land!

But I'm sure some countries will cash in on the growing scarcity of workers and become baby-making countries, and steer their children to worker-starved countries, and benefit from the remittances their children will send home!

Who knows!!! That welfare mother with 12 children may be able to afford a house in Beverly Hills some day!

Eat your heart out, you declining middle class folks with one or two children!

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

I seriously doubt that you have ever done much travel to third world countries and saw firsthand the squalor that overpopulation has caused.
I have. There is a direct correlation between population and living standards in third world countries. The amounts of available employment and resources are finite and adding to the labor pool while at the same time increasing demand for resources is a recipe for failure.
Of course you will not necessarily need to travel to see this phenomena for yourself, soon it will be apparent in the living standards right here in the US.

I have. And the problems with those countries is societal, not economic.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by celcius

I'm far more concerned with the growing rate of uneducated single moms aged 18-35.

Me too.

Even liberal leaning scholars at think tanks like the Brookings Institution are (finally!) admitting kids born to unmarried parents just don't do as well in life (on average).

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - Washington Post

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by tijlover

With the Black Plague that swept Europe, centuries ago, wiping out 1/3rd of the population, for one generation there were no lower classes. Employers, like today, couldn't intimidate their employees by saying: Don't like your job, there's a hundred applicants waiting to take your job!

But as another poster alluded to....much of this problem is related to uneducated single parents having kids...Those kids usually have more emotional and behavioral problems and don't do as well in school, so a disproportionate number of them end up in low paying employment, on public assistance, and as single parents themselves (Once the pattern is set, it becomes the norm and is hard to break).