Global crisis 'to strike by 2030'

[Pale Blue Dot]

Source: BBC

Growing world population will cause a "perfect storm" of food, energy and water shortages by 2030, the UK government chief scientist has warned.

By 2030 the demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences, Prof John Beddington said.

Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the population tops 8.3 billion, he told a conference in London.

Climate change will exacerbate matters in unpredictable ways, he added.

'Complacent'

"It's a perfect storm," Prof Beddington told the Sustainable Development UK 09 conference.

'Perfect storm' poses global threat, says Professor Beddington

"There's not going to be a complete collapse, but things will start getting really worrying if we don't tackle these problems."

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Get while the getting is good. Smirk." - Republicon Homelanders

"We've got ours, and it's packed away in our Swiss Bank Accounts for just such a, um, crisis. Take, take, take. Too bad about you Proles. Smirk."

- Republicon Homelanders

[Lorien]

2. No politician ever wants to talk about population

but humanity needs to start talking about it-and quick. Between climate change and population the planet is on course to completely run out of resources by 2050. That means that most non human species on the planet will be extinct, and the planet's ability to continue supporting any complex life forms will be severely compromised. Technology alone won't save us. Choosing to reproduce less and conserve the resources we have is the only way to save life on earth. It's the inconvenient truth that no one dares discuss.

[caseymoz]

12. I hate to say that there's no good solution to it. I know that's flame-bait.

We don't have the level of social-organization to do anything significant about this. The reason why we're not doing anything is that an attempt will lead to totalitarianism and won't be effective either. No problem on this scale has ever been solved in 40 years.

Now, I know that this is so pessimistic, but I will add that I doubt it will lead to either the extinction of the human species. Though the population will drop, nor will it mean that higher life forms will be destroyed.

I hate to say that population control will be done through shorter life-spans, which seems to be the way nature "meant it."

[The Stranger]

19. Holy black and white thinking.

Any attempt to limit population growth "will lead to totalitarinism"?

Come on. You can do better than that.

[caseymoz]

21. You're right I can.

My thinking on this has undergone change. This is what I believe about it:

First, voluntary birth restraints never can be practiced equally. Whatever measures are taken in one culture or country to restrain population will not be followed by another. Since we're thinking of population as a world problem, we could almost bank on one culture or country undoing the efforts people in another make to restrain births. This will also create changes in the power structure of nations. Countries and ethnic groups have seen this and some, like Iran in the 1980s, have actually made higher birth rates into a policy. This implies, unfortunately, that it can only be effectively done through the application of force-- and well-organized.

The results of that can be seen with the immigration dispute: there's a shortage of workers now at every skill-level in this country. Basically, we have to import our talent. I hate to say this does create resentments and ethnic and religious frictions. A falling population is why Europe has had to allow immigration from Islamic countries. Otherwise, there wouldn't be enough people to run the economy. Historically it holds true as well. Part of the reason why the Romans had to have barbarians fight for them is that the birthrate among Romans had fallen so much. Also illustrating the problem: the efforts of Europeans to restrain their population has been undone by most Islamic countries. The only way to equalize this effect is through widespread use of force: hence, I said it will lead to totalitarianism.

Another thing which has been noted with concern, is the "marching moron" effect, where the most intelligent people restrict their offspring, while the less intelligent ones do not, and the less intelligent ones would also tend to be worse parents.

Yes, a higher population can crash, but we're doing what any species would do during "good times." We're creating as many numbers, but also as much genetic diversity as we can in our species, so that we have a better chance of surviving a crash and re-adapting the species.

Another point, no country with a shrinking population has ever had economic growth. On paper it can be done, but it has never happened in the real world.

Fifth, and this argument is made a lot but it has merit: the more minds we have on a problem, the more likely that will solve it. It is called parallel processing. We better hope so.

Apparently, we are going to have some kind of crash or catastrophe, but limiting population is not the solution. I'm convinced it won't solve the problem, and at most we'll delay the crash just a little. Having offspring, though, appears to be a driving force that invigorates a species. Not that I think people shouldn't make their own choice about it, but those are the facts as I see them.

So, I believe voluntary population control will fail. Now, I don't expect my criticism has a lot of traction, but go ahead and try it and see what continues to happen.

[The Stranger]

26. Actually, that was just as bad.

First, voluntary birth restraints never can be practiced equally.

If nations can organize and form treaties to address any myriad number of things, they can certainly do so with the overpopulation problem. Everything you have stated in free rider problem terms is the case with every single globabl problem there is, from overfishing to climate change to bans on various types of weapons of war.

Another thing which has been noted with concern, is the "marching moron" effect, where the most intelligent people restrict their offspring, while the less intelligent ones do not, and the less intelligent ones would also tend to be worse parents.

Do you have any support for this? This sounds like the "marching moron argument." Nor does it address the issues faced on a global scale. People's intelligence is not really the concern here. It is the fact that there are too many people on the planet, and the sustainability of life is being destroyed. The same goes for your "economic growth" argument.

Yes, a higher population can crash, but we're doing what any species would do during "good times." We're creating as many numbers, but also as much genetic diversity as we can in our species, so that we have a better chance of surviving a crash and re-adapting the species.

We are not bacteria or ants. We are not just any other species. We have minds and reason and science and can and do address our environment through coordinated action. In short, we never "do what any species would do." We have altered our environment by design to a degree no species ever has. It is practically what defines us. And, really, that is sort of the whole point -- making a change for the better rather than for the worse.

Fifth, and this argument is made a lot but it has merit: the more minds we have on a problem, the more likely that will solve it.

Judging from the quality of thinking in your posts, I think you have already disproved this argument. This isn't the origin of the universe or quantum mechanics. The solutions are not that difficult. It is a question of addressing all of the pseudo-arguments that seem to obscure a bizarre fear that addressing overpopulation is somehow dangerous or unnatural.

Apparently, we are going to have some kind of crash or catastrophe, but limiting population is not the solution.

If this is supposed to be some sort of conclusion, it doesn't make sense. The idea being debated is how to address overpopulation not only to prevent a "crash or catastrophe," but to preserve the sustainability of all life on the planet. You see, there is other life on the planet besides human, but the human life is destroying it.

And it does seem that limiting population is the solution. It is clear to anyone that limiting population is the solution to overpopulation. It is almost by definition a true statement.

This bizarre set of propositions you have posted merely illustrates that, for some bizarre fucking reason, people oppose addressing overpopulation for some visceral, vestigial urge. Because their arguments make no sense whatsoever.

[caseymoz]

28. Did you read what I said at the end? Try it. See what happens.

"If nations can organize and form treaties to address any myriad number of things, they can certainly do so with the overpopulation problem. Everything you have stated in free rider problem terms is the case with every single globabl problem there is, from overfishing to climate change to bans on various types of weapons of war."

Whether it is successful is a different thing entirely. Countries signing treaties mean that they have to enforce them on their population in some way. Giving out condoms and education relies on voluntary restraints. There is little evidence that this will work actual reducing population worldwide. Also, many countries will not sign the treaties. The cultures either there are taboos, or they have policies for using population to gain power. Also, there's no reason to believe that those citizens, who perhaps have no perception of the worldwide picture, or who perhaps don't believe what they are being told, will follow them without coercion.

Do you have any support for this? This sounds like the 'marching moron argument.' Nor does it address the issues faced on a global scale. People's intelligence is not really the concern here. It is the fact that there are too many people on the planet, and the sustainability of life is being destroyed. The same goes for your "economic growth" argument.

I conjecture that the rise of conservatism in the US was at least partially due to this, and others have suggested that. (In "Freakonomics," I believe). Whereas liberals restrained their births since Roe v. Wade and used birth control, conservative parents did not. Hence, in just one generation the politics of our country changed greatly. It means that those who understand the problem the least are likely to have more offspring in the next generation, and to socially misinform them. Don't think this can't be an important effect.

"We are not bacteria or ants. We are not just any other species. We have minds and reason and science and can and do address our environment through coordinated action. In short, we never 'do what any species would do.' We have altered our environment by design to a degree no species ever has. It is practically what defines us. And, really, that is sort of the whole point -- making a change for the better rather than for the worse."

We have also altered the environment not by design. You are right, to an extent, we are not just any other species. Even so, I argue that humankind has not developed the degree of social organization necessary to restrain its worldwide population. Plus, we're not that proactive. IMHO, it will take a few centuries alone before we do, and probably only a crisis on a greater scale than the Black Death will drive us to do it. We are very adaptable and plastic in our behavior, but given our apparent evolutionary history as competing tribes, there is no reason to think such a thing will be quick or easy.

I'll add: there are no examples in biology of a whole species restraining its reproduction-- that I'm aware of. It has never been tried outside of family units. There are plenty of examples where members of a species cooperate for reproduction of the social unit-- like bees or ants, but as I've pointed out, they exhibit a high degree of social control. It's what we would call totalitarian. Individuals who step out of line are dismembered. (I can back that up). Besides, those colonies or hives are really one family unit.

Now, about parallel minds working to solve the problem:

"Judging from the quality of thinking in your posts, I think you have already disproved this argument. This isn't the origin of the universe or quantum mechanics. The solutions are not that difficult. It is a question of addressing all of the pseudo-arguments that seem to obscure a bizarre fear that addressing overpopulation is somehow dangerous or unnatural."

I'll note your ad hominum attack and your attempt to bias the argument by referring to mine as a "pseudo-argument"; these comments aren't worth answering. Now, I'll say that the solution to a problem this widespread and this involved is not at all as simple as you think. Quantum mechanics is probably simpler because it can be proved or disproved in lab experiments. Whereas with overpopulation, most of what we have to go on are field studies on animals that are far more limited in behavior. Such studies of human behavior are necessarily biased.

The will of individuals to reproduce successfully and pass down its genes, even cooperating to do so, is very basic to all species. Figuring out a way to thwart it for a whole species successfully is no joke. Figuring out the solution to the ancillary problems is no joke as well. Moreover, we don't have enough time, and should think more of surviving and keeping organized during the cataclysm that is coming until we can eventually solve it.

"If this is supposed to be some sort of conclusion, it doesn't make sense. The idea being debated is how to address overpopulation not only to prevent a 'crash or catastrophe,' but to preserve the sustainability of all life on the planet. You see, there is other life on the planet besides human, but the human life is destroying it."

Without a doubt, our overpopulation is greatly afflicting other species on the planet. However, this, or something like it, has happened before and this planet has been altered greatly by life-- and to the detriment of many species. Oxygen itself, absolutely essential to animal life, was just a pollutant for the longest time, a molecule that was destructive to cells. Then, animal life evolved, and the pollutant was put to good use.

The speed at which it is happening might be unique, (though paleontology can hardly give a picture of something this short-term). IMHO, I don't believe we're going to become extinct, nor kill off every other animal and plant species (though many of them will die). Genetics have indicated that humankind in prehistory was once down to 500-600 individuals. We adapted-- but it took an extreme amount of environmental pressure to do it.

Overpopulation and its effects have happened before. Nature's main solution has always been to shorten lifespans not restrain births. Unfortunately, I think that solution may be forced upon us. In the laboratory, only in extreme overcrowding and with high resources do birthrates drop-- through less breeding, and infanticide, but that's not the situation the planet faces. Sustainability: I don't think it will work, at least, not this time. We have too much to learn about it and not enough time to learn it, and we're bound not to have it right.

To my other arguments, I will add that an aging population with fewer people to care for the aged, is not a good thing. You have fewer productive people with more responsibility over a greater part of the population. It's one thing we are facing now.

Again, maybe restraining births will work, but I doubt it, and I do worry about what the side effects of it portend. It seems to be the adopted strategy, and maybe the it will be too short-term to create the harm I anticipate.

[Deja Q]

13. Nobody should blame families with 1~4 offspring or those who *gasp* abstain.

:shrug:

[apnu]

15. We have one, only one and that's it.

If we want more (and we're not sure) we are going to adopt.

But we're an extreme minority in our neighborhood. Just about everybody I know is gunning for 3 kids. I dunno why, 3 is the magic number but that's what it seems to be on the Northside. 3 is the new 2, go figure.

[raccoon]

25. Everyone should blame people in First World countries who are using the lion's share of the world's

resources. And probably 50-100 times the amount of water some Third World citizens use.

[christx30]

24. OK. let's do the china thing

Limit families to one children. And if they disobey, we jail the parents and kill extra children, especially girls
We need to think outside the box here. :sarcasm:

[Vilis Veritas]

3. Prof Beddington says that we need more GMO crops...

The plug for GMO has me pondering if this Prof is on someones payroll...

Just wondering is all...

Peace

V V

[Vilis Veritas]

4. Beddington and Monsanto???

A few light ties to Monsanto for the good professor...

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1237396568.html

Monsanto likes him of course...

http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=12581

Just wondering is all....

Peace

V V

[4dsc]

5. It will happen long before 2030...

Worldwide oil production will drop by 30% or more by 2020 so I wouldn't be too worried about 2030..

[Delphinus]

16. I posted over on the thread

in Environment/Energy, but the first thing that came to my mind when reading it was that we don't have until 2030. He doesn't come out and name peak oil, but that definitely comes into play.

Interesting about his links with GMO food (listed in a post above).

[Tashca]

6. What's the motive here?

I read this article and of course it will strike fear into a person. He lays out all the problems ahead like we've all been told. Then his solution is the use and expansion of GM crops? I have to wonder about the Professors agenda....or the author.

The last few years when I see the words Sustainable Development used by the Agriculture industry. They seem to have co-opted this term.

I don't doubt these problems will arise, but I think there should be more thought put into the solutions. If I didn't know better I would think this some sort of propaganda peice....

scare......scare.......scare.....then GMO's are our salvation??......pfft!!

[Vilis Veritas]

7. Bingo...see my links above.

Prof has been saying this for over 2 years...monsanto web site even links to one of his articles...

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what planet this guy is on...

Peace..

[Tashca]

9. I saw them after I posted

Based on those links...I think his agenda is clear.

I get so freaking tired of these people scaring the hell out of everyone because they want to forward an agenda. Let's talk real solutions, not bullshit!!

[SpiralHawk]

10. "Eat our mutant facsimile food-product crapola or die. Smirk." - Monsanto

eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Agronomists have been developing drought resistant, pest resistant, and

salinity tolerant crops for decades without resorting to GM. The only advantage GM has is that the companies can then patent the seed, and charge farmers for the use of the patented seed - forbidding the saving of seed for the following year's crop.

I read recently (don't have a link) that GM crops actually REDUCE productivity in the long run. Apparently what we can create in the lab just doesn't have the oomph of something developed by Mother Nature over tens of thousands of years.

it's about corporate control and corporate profits, not about helping the farmer or feeding people.

[Tashca]

18. You are right

This is all about control of the profit from control of the patented seed.

I talked to one of the company researchers last summer about this new drought tolerant GMO corn. I asked why would they develop something without knowing if a drought were to happen? Who would spend the extra money for a risky venture? He laughed and told me this was not for the corn belt. This was about expanding into markets they haven't been able to grow corn in.

Salinity tolerant??.....Intesting. I suppose this will be aimed at areas that have irrigated too heavily leaving too large of sodium deposits to grow more crops?? I am guessing that may be the case. Sounds like a good case of encouraging more irrigation and subsequent sterilizing of the soil with salt.......unless you have something tolerant of course...

Yes....I am seeing evidence of GMO's having weaknesses....especially if any of the Bt gene's are added. I've read about that too. My biggest concern with this has always been ....what the hell are we doing to the soil biology?

[Alcibiades]

8. Economic development is the best birth control

Globalization is behind many of the ills facing our economy, and the world's. Let people develop the economies of their own home countries, rather than stirring the pot of money, people and capital to the benefit of multinational corporations.

[Deja Q]

14. Agreed.

[Delphinus]

17. Localized economies? n/t

[The Stranger]

27. How about trying birth control as the best birth control?

We can't afford to make economic development a condition for birth control.

[tom_paine]

20. THAT'S optimistic! n/t

[gauguin57]

22. Hell, the world is gonna end on Dec. 21, 2012, so who cares about 2030?

Sheesh. Don't you people follow the Mayan calendar? (or watch history channel? or listen to Coast to Coast?)

[davidinalameda]

23. one solution to the water problem is desalinization plants

pollution can always be controlled

you can't always find new sources of fresh water