Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[Christ]

I believe strictly in replacing myself in this world. That means that 2 kids is max for myself, and I fully intend to permanently 'control myself' after the second one.

The potential flaw in this plan is the unpredictability of multiples during pregnancy. That, of course, would offset my beliefs, but it's far less common in natural pregnancies, which is what we're working for.

[Frank Lee]

Yeah, like if a couple has one, then has twins... gotta have allowance for that. No biggie.

[chuckm]

presumption that A) overpopulation has negative consequences, B) overpopulation is not a vague concept for the future, it is HERE and it is NOW,

I have problems with postulate B. Regarding food production, thanks to Norman Borlaug's work, we are still far from mass starvation due to an inadequate food supply. The problem today is the economics of food distribution. But consider how many farms have gone fallow in the US alone (we are the world's most productive agricultural powerhouse, both in terms of total harvest and, more importantly, in yield per acre). If current US agri practices could be implemented worldwide, our population could comfortably double. Continuing the advances in genetic engineering of crops, I think we could well sustain triple (or more) the current world population. Throw in the not too distant technology of oceanic aquaculture, and the real food production potential is unbelievable.
The other primary resource necessary for life, water, is a stickier issue. However, current technology puts large-scale purification of ocean water within reach. Again, the problem is the economics. I firmly believe that, within ten to fifteen years, high volume production will be far more economical, enough that even many of the poorest nations will be able to afford the technology.
Other necessities (shelter and power) are also technologically within reach. Once again, it is the economics. That's why I am strident in my belief that bringing about economic prosperity in third-world countries, not a first-world return to "simple" living, will produce the best results. "Green" or environomentally friendly tech is available only to those who are able to afford it.

[Bicycle Bob]

Modern agriculture is totally dependent on oil, so current trends cannot continue. Part of California's central valley is being lost to salt accumulation from bad irrigation, and many other productive areas are dependent on aquifers that are quickly being depleted. Desalinization is energy-intensive, as would be running rivers backward to the fields.
GM crops are less productive than traditional seeds - they are designed to sell chemicals and promote a monopoly, while causing health problems.
Aquaculture is dependent on converting less-desireable ocean species to salmon, etc, at a great loss in protein overall, while the farms spread disease and overfishing, ocean acidification, etc, are only helping the jellyfish. My own well was ruined by nearby aquaculture hatchery tanks when I lived on the coast. The fish farms in Chile crashed recently, and the ones in BC are always in trouble, or making trouble for the wild population.
If the whole world copies our high-energy, non-sustainable practises, climate chaos is certain. What would really ease the situation is more awareness that vegetarians who get a good variety of plants live longer, healthier lives on a small fraction of the land needed to raise and slaughter animals for food.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by chuckm

If current US agri practices could be implemented worldwide, our population could comfortably double.

No, not comfortably, because food production is not the limiting factor in comfort. What you'd have under such a scheme are the human equivalent of battery chickens or cattle feedlots: creatures jammed into a bare minimum of space. Which indeed is not far from the current lot of most residents of most urban areas. Just battery humans, that's all.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

No, not comfortably, because food production is not the limiting factor in comfort. What you'd have under such a scheme are the human equivalent of battery chickens or cattle feedlots: creatures jammed into a bare minimum of space. Which indeed is not far from the current lot of most residents of most urban areas. Just battery humans, that's all.

Was it the red pill I was supposed to take? Or the blue one?

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Christ

Was it the red pill I was supposed to take? Or the blue one?

...as Grace Slick sang in "White Rabbit" "...but the ones mother gives you, do nothing at all..."

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

Frankly, if people don't like the way they're being treated, just like any other animal, they have the choice to oppose, even violently. It's worked thousands of times throughout history, and it can continue to work.

None of that affects the choice that the people of Haiti can make to discontinue breeding (so much), though.

It's worked sometimes and other times it hasn't worked, so I don't think simply stating it's an option w/o more depth is correct. Sometimes people will oppose something violently and achieve their goals (American Revolution), and sometimes people will oppose something violently and be slaughtered (Bosnian War). Just because we say something will work doesn't mean it will actually work.

I don't see how people who consume ~30 times more energy per capita can complain about someone in another country having twice as many children. Maybe if people in this thread were all using ~50kWh/month of electricity, drove vehicles that averaged ~350mpg, and so on, then they would have a platform that was at least not riddled with hypocrisy, but as it stands that isn't the case AFAIK. Complaining about other people of similar consumption habits having more kids makes sense I suppose, but not complaining about people having twice as many kids when they only consume a thirtieth of the resources.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

Modern agriculture is totally dependent on oil, so current trends cannot continue.

That's not true. Most of the FF inputs for agriculture are from natural gas. Only a third or less is oil based IIRC.

[Bicycle Bob]

Well, I should probably have said "fossil fuels" rather than oil. Natural gas does provide the nitrogen fertilizers, but still, the system does not work without potash mines, trucks, and tractors, which mostly use diesel. Overall, we are burning about ten calories of hydrocarbons to get one calorie of food on the plate.