Re: Why Isn't the Population Problem on the News?
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:41 pm
All of that... though I'm still not sure the ends justify the means for China (and India at times, too)... they might though and perhaps their future generations will thank them for it.kay wrote:There isn't a population problem right now. There is a resource problem right now.
Population growth is exponential. That's just math. The question is: when does population growth outstrip the ability to keep the population alive? Theories back in the 70s predicted we'd be in a resource shortfall by now, but for the most part, we're not (and if resources were much better distributed, for example the billions of tons of crops that gets destroyed in Europe each year, instead of being sent to needy nations). This is due to improvements in technology. Will future improvements keep up with the population growth?
Well, unless humanity gets a lot smarter and wakes up, no one is going to lift a finger to do anything about it until it's too late. Because "It'll never happen". "Someone else will deal with it". "Dem scientists gonna sort us out. Then we stick dem back in the black cell where we don't have to hear from 'em again until the next crisis". "It's all the scientists fault". "It's a test". "The infidels will die". "We deserve it". "It's a fucking conspiracy, some rich people are stockpiling all the food somewhere, probably on their secret Mars colony".
The population problem will take a lot longer to develop than global warming. And even now, 30 years later, people still aren't convinced that the world is getting warmer. What chance does am impending problem that won't materialise till probably over a hundred years from now.
And the problem with population isn't just to do with resources. It's to do with heat as well. People produce heat. Naturally through their metabolisms, but also through other means. Agriculture. Electric items. Combusting biomass and fossil fuels. Processing chemicals. The larger the number of people, the greater the heat output. Heat is not a useful form of energy, we can't transform it into a more useful form. Which means that it will build up (a tiny proportion will get radiated into space). Regardless of the current global warming situation caused by greenhouse gases, an increasing population will also result in a rise in global temperatures. Given population patterns, this change in temperature may be somewhat more localised. But, megacities could eventually literally boil themselves to death. Or give rise to very local microclimates.
So why isn't it on the news? Because it isn't sexy. It isn't a shock story. It's not a problem now. How much attention do the news items informing the public that millions of tonnes of food is wasted instead of going to feed the starving? Practically none, despite the fact that it's a big a potshot at any government as any other news item. What gets more public attention? Tiger Woods' fucking habits. Perhaps the state of the world population is the main reason why the population problem isn't on the news.
It's also an insidious problem with no obvious target, and humans are poor at shooting at targets that aren't tangible. That is, of course, until the problem gets bad enough that people start dying and rationing starts. And then the scapegoat will be found. Typically, this will be a neighbouring country. In this case though, war could take on a whole different approach. It could be a class war. Because resources are all about money. And the rich naturally have more of it than the poor. There will be more poor people than rich. The rich will be accused of letting the poor starve. Such a war would occur globally, probably fairly simultaneously. The population problem then becomes the news.
It might be odd for me to say this, but China's population control policy is probably something they got more right than most other countries have. The majority of the world is less educated than the west. You either need to educate people as to why they need to stop having 10 kids, or you need to force them to do it. And frankly, forcing people is definitely a lot easier than teaching people. And if you've run out of time...
