World Conditions Continue to Improve

As we enter into a new decade, it might make sense to look back to view the progress than mankind has made in these “last days”.

About 200 years ago everyone on the planet lived on the modern day equivalent of about $400 a year. The exceptions were tiny nobilities. In the late 18^th century life for all humans started to improve from one year to the next. Today we expect our cars, medical care and other systems to continually improve.  Since the early 20^th century incomes have increased 1.5 percent per year.

Not only are we richer, we work less and have better products than ever before. A hundred years ago men began working in their teens with no vacations. One hundred years ago 26 percent of male workers retired by age 65, today over 80 percent do.

In developed countries the 99 percent of the poorest of the poor have refrigerators, in the US 64 percent have air conditioning and 60 percent have washers and dryers. 

The probability of a 20-year-old having a living grandmother is higher than a 20-year-old having a living mother a century ago.

The list goes on and on. We live better, there is less starvation than anytime in recorded history, less water pollution than 100 years ago, we live longer and we are wealthier than any other time.

A sign of the last days, I think not.

Best, 

Zarco

The comments above are taken from the American economist Steven Landsburg. Please see his writings for more statistical proof that the world is getting much, much better.

I agree that life is better for more people  than a couple hundred years ago. The fly in the ointment is global population growth. That will undo the progress we have seen. In another generation population must be checked or it will  start looking  like that Soylent Green movie with Charleton Heston.

Moshe - a statistic and a thought for your consideration. 

Population growth is the greatest thing that can happen. We need more geniuses, we need more people growing and producing things of value. Technology advances increase food production and such advances are highly correlated with increases in population. And families can choose its own population growth rate, which become self-regulating. 

A statistic from Thomas Sowell: Take the state of Texas, divide it into lots of 5,000 square feet, put a house on each lot and put a family of four in each house. You have just housed the entire world population. Think about that, just the state of Texas.....

Best, 

Zarco

zarco:

"Population growth is the greatest thing that can happen. We need more geniuses, we need more people growing and producing things of value. Technology increases in food production are correlated to increases in population. And families can choose its own population growth rate, which become self-regulating. 

A statistic from Thomas Sowell: Take the state of Texas, divide it into lots of 5,000 square feet, put a house on each lot and put a family of four in each house. You have just housed the entire world population. Think about that, just the state of Texas....."

Your post reminds me of those justifications for indiscriminate breeding that devout Catholics use.

You state that population growth is good for producing geniuses but at the 99^th percentile rate we already have 60 million of them. What's the point of producing more if you are unwilling to take the advice that many of them give you, namely that population growth is the problem? It doesn't, for instant, take a genius to see the flaw in your notion of fitting everyone into Texas. They simply don't have enough room to grow their food in that 50x100 foot lot for four persons. You may be able to grow all the vegetables they need if: The houses are underground; you're using permaculture techniques and it's being grown in a greenhouse to protect against hot and cold weather. Nevertheless you won't have space for grains even if you adopt a vegetarian diet (Beef requires 10 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef).

As far as "technology increases in food production" are concerned, you need extraordinary amounts of artificial to grow these so called miracle grains. Artificial fertilizer is made from natural gas. Try thinking of the implications of that.

The bottom line is that we are, in your limitless population growth scenario, constantly chasing after the next techno-miracle. The day quickly comes when our magicians run out of tricks. What is needed is population stability with a lot of unused and redundant land so that the modest population does not come crashing down whenever a mega-drought hits.

villabolo

: They simply don't have enough room to grow their food in that 50x100 foot lot for four persons.

Yes, they do. 50x100 is 5,000 square feet.  If you take half of that, you have enough of a footprint for one 2,500 square foot single story house, or one 5,000 square foot two story house.

It's possible to grow 100 pounds of potatoes on only 4 square feet and to grow $700 worth of food on 100 sq.ft.  If you utilized 2,000 square feet of the 2,500 square feet of dirt left after the home, you could grow $14,000 worth of food.  Given differences in land quality, how arable the land is, etc. that is still more than enough to feed a good sized family, let alone just 4 persons.

The available land on this planet is tremendously underutilized.

Farkel

Villabolo - the "Texas example" is an extreme to get people to think creatively. Imagine the remainder of the US to use for agriculture and other uses Increasing population is a good thing and it is self-regulating if it becomes a bad thing. Michael Kremer - the Harvard economist - has gathered data for all of recorded human history and pre-history to support the theory that population growth drives technological progress, technological progress drives economic growth and economic growth drives population growth - a virtuous cycle....

Thomas Malthus said when welcoming in nineteenth century predicted that uncontrolled population growth would lead to mass starvation and human misery. It didn't happen then and will not in this century. 

Some really profound thinking on the costs and benefits of population growth (the benefits far outweigh the costs) are found in the writing and research of Sowell, Kremer and Landsburg. Give it a read.

Best, 

Z

Thanks Zarco--good post.  I agree so much.  My mother

often tells me that we must be so close to the end because

of the bad conditions we live in.  I tell her I think that conditions

were worse during WWI and WWII.

Sour Grapes

Farkel: We have an historical example from the Irish as to what happens when you rely on potatoes as your main staple food. The potato blight caused the death of a million Irish and the emigration of a million more. That is why you need redundancy in any system. By the way, I'd like to know where you got your yield estimates for 25 lbs of potatoes per square foot.

Overall I agree that the Earth is not efficiently utilized but I can not envision a society of tens of billions feeding themselves from open air agriculture due to the issues of drought and/or too much rain, extreme heat or cold, etc.

villabolo

Your thread should be titled: "Facts you'll never read in the WT's literature  :)

villabolo,

I never asserted anything about potatoes being a main staple food.  I merely cited an example of how many can be produced on a very small footprint.  My main point was that you can grow $700 worth of food on 100 square feet.  That includes all kinds of veggies.

:By the way, I'd like to know where you got your yield estimates for 25 lbs of potatoes per square foot.

 http://lifehacker.com/5202849/grow-100-lbs-of-potatoes-in-4-square-feet

:Overall I agree that the Earth is not efficiently utilized but I can not envision a society of tens of billions feeding themselves from open air agriculture due to the issues of drought and/or too much rain, extreme heat or cold, etc.

Why?  That's what farmers face all the time.  Are you asserting that most food is raised indoors instead of in the open air?

Farkel

Zarco:

"Thomas Malthus said when welcoming in nineteenth century predicted that uncontrolled population growth would lead to mass starvation and human misery. It didn't happen then and will not in this century."

I believe that the few persons who get a prediction right are usually off on the timing. Everyone thinks that a particular (realistic) doomsday scenario has to happen within their or their childrens lifespan.

Yet there were famines throughout the world, in the 19^th particularly in China and before that century the Mayan civilization disappeared thanks to a series of droughts. It wasn't until the early 20^th century that Carl Bosch and Fritz Haber invented artificial fertilizer derived from natural gas. That eventually allowed the Earth's population to triple in size.

Is that an improvement? No. Other than escalating the destruction of the environment most of those people are impoverished and unhealthy.

villabolo

Farkel: Why?  That's what farmers face all the time.  Are you asserting that most food is raised indoors instead of in the open air?"

Outdoor growing of food is what present day farmers face under present day population conditions. But if you want to increase that population 10 fold they are going to need to pull every trick in the book. For example, if you have several billion people living in Siberia where you're lucky to get one short growing season they will simply need to raise food indoors to take advantage of the wasted time (the equivalent of 3+ seasons). Even locations with rich soil and temperate climates will not be able to use the winter season unless their plants are protected from the frost.

Bottom line, if you want to maximize the number of human beings you have to maximize their food growing potential, with indoor growing of food and then some.

villabolo

:For example, if you have several billion people living in Siberia 

If anyone had several billion people living in Siberia, it would be a pretty dumb thing!  

Farkel

Farkel:  "If anyone had several billion people living in Siberia, it would be a pretty dumb thing!  "

I totally agree with you but I used that example with zarco in mind because he said, "Population growth is the greatest thing that can happen." Unless he clarifies up to what extent population growth is a good thing I can only assume, based on my experience with others who express themselves in a similar fashion, that he meant unlimited growth. All the way into space which is a bit more hostile to live in than Siberia or even Antarctica.

If I assumed too much and that is not what you meant to say zarco, then, please tell me, what are your limits on population?

villabolo

Another thing.  While growing food is more efficient today than probably ever before, it's efficieny can still be improved at lot.  For instance, plants like corn and wheat can be bred back to being perrenials.  This kind of farming reduces the need for water, firtiliser, tilling and general costs.  As well, it would cut back on pollution.  Also, it would pull more carbon dioxide of of the atmosphere.

S

villabolo,

: then, please tell me, what are your limits on population?

Farkel:  "then, please tell me, what are your limits on population?"

A little background information before I answer that question.

I believe that self reliant communities of approximately 500 people each. I would model the communities after Arcosanti, an unfinished ecovillage 70 miles north of Phoenix. Land would be redistributed, let's say four square kilometers per community, which comes out to two acres per person. I believe that this amount of land is more than enough to provide several times the amount of food necessary.

If the amount of grain that is being grown is four times the needs of each individual, that surplus will be sealed in Nitrogen packed cans. Presently this technology (which caters to the survivalist movement) is capable of storing dry grains for 20-30 years at room temperature. This would be enough food to counteract the effects of any megadroughts or crop damage of any sorts whether due to disease or climate change. That plus water collection systems in each community would guarantee survival and stabilize the population making it immune to whims of nature (and in my opinion man induced climate disruption).

That explains, in simple terms, how I would prevent the population crashes. Preventing the population from rising (which inevitably perpetuates the cycles of boom and bust with all the human misery that Malthus correctly predicted) is a more subtle matter. In my opinion the inhabitants of these self reliant villages will know unconsciously and consciously that they are reaching a limit as their population begins to rise to 600, 800, 1200 etc.. What they will perceive is that their standard of living is going down slowly but surely. What they will do (the females mostly) is what many are already doing in Russia, Italy and other nations in Europe, even the USA which would be in negative population growth if it weren't for immigrants (the legal kind let alone illegals).

It is important to note that the small size of these communities makes them more transparent and comprehensible. It's inhabitants would understand their "standard of living" would be declining thus creating a choice for them: Quality or Quantity? (Monty Python's "Every sperm is sacred" is a humorous analogy to what I'm expressing). Also, while any individual in this civilization is free to move anywhere he wants, he/she would have to be accepted by the village (which probably would put an end to imigration the moment they perceive that they have enough people.

Also not all of the land would be given up for human habitation. About half or so, in the USA, would be dedicated to pure wilderness without human inhabitation of any sort. Furthermore since the cultural traditions of this village civilization will include knowledge of the past (those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it) the population will be self regulating. No forced abortions, etc.

With a stable population on Earth the only expansion of Humanity would occur after several centuries when space colony technology becomes feasible. The same principles would apply to our Solar System as well as the Galaxy. No mindless uncontrolled exponential growth but population stability punctuated with brief spurts of growth.  The "standard of living" then would probably be one "village" or a few residing in an O'Neill cylinder (let's say five miles wide by twenty miles long).

Oh, now that I gave you some background information, let me say, or rather guesstimate, that the "limits" based on the above would be about half a billion to one billion in the North American continent. Yes, you can squeeze a lot more but why bother? What is this fetish with quantity?

villabolo

And as for 'wars and reports of wars' as a sign of the times...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-6911212.html

November 12, 1988

ASSUMING that war does not break out in the next few hours, on Sunday Europe will have been at peace for longer than at any time in its history, at least what is reliably known of its history. Previously, the longest period of European peace had been between the end of the Franco-German war in 1871 and the start of the first world war in 1914. What about the Russian-Turkish fight of 1877, the Balkan battles of 1911 and 1912, Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in 1974? Arguments, arguments. Look at the broad picture, the extraordinary peace that has engulfed the previously warring ...

Humans  who are forced to live too close to each will turn on each other like chickens  in a coop  who peck each other to death . I for one, don't see the value of 100 billion people crammed into every bit of flat open space we have , living on a boring diet and a mundane existence. We are also reaching the point that technology offers few increases in the comforts of everyday life. The only thing left to invent is the Star Trek food assimulator to replace all the real food.  For a society like that to function they will need to force everyone to wear standarized clothing ( jumpsuits, to eliminate all belts)  that has extended wear, like all nylon/acrylic fabrics- plastic  Croc  type shoes/clogs that can be recycled over and over- no underwear either- too wasteful.  Histroy has a lesson for us- every top predator has his day in the sun and then their day is over. It will be no different for humans.

The UN report, 2008 State of the Future, predicts that world population will drop to a level lower than today's by 2100.  ...lot's of variables...only time will tell. 

http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/Global_Challenges/Gc-03.html

"The current world population of 6.7 billion is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050, peaking soon afterward at 9.8 billion and then falling to 5.5 billion by 2100, according to the UN lower forecast. Scientific breakthroughs over the next 50 years are likely to change these forecasts, giving people longer and more productive lives than most would believe possible today. Nevertheless, global population is changing from high mortality and high fertility to low mortality and low fertility."