What's Really Warming the World? Nice Bloomberg graph

[P-hack]

perhaps it is the wrong way to state it, it is pretty volatile, little to do with long term perceptions of poverty/prosperity.



Either way I don't see blaming poverty or "education" as terribly related.

[Arragonis]

Redo that for a specific country.

[P-hack]

ok

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Oh, so populations of animals with low fertility rates don't die out :/

Three aspects:

#1>
Results = Reality .. weather that result was 'chosen' or not.

'choose' to have a child .. but fail to conceive .. Result = no child = reality.

Choice has finite influence on result ... Result = Reality .. even if the result is not what one 'chose'.

- - - - - -

#2>
That low fertility group you describe might die out , or it might not die out at all .. it might thrive , it might not thrive .. it depends on more than just fertility rate ... Survival of the fittest .. fittest does not necessarily mean the most fertile.

There have been numerous species that have died out .. even if they had a higher fertility rate than other species that did not die out.

A high fertility rate is only one contributing factor toward how 'fit' a group / species is in a given environment / context.

- - - - - - -

#3>
Yes Observations to-date (reducing population % growth rate) .. does not agree with your previous hypothetical :
"if we breed out those who choose to self-reduce"

Soo far ... data , to-date .. refutes .. shows that specific hypothetical is not happening.

If that changes in the future .. than it will manifest itself as a increasing % global growth rate.

Originally Posted by P-Hack

My take on it is that a large number of people want a "peaceful" reduction of the population, but observations about evolution have shown that conflict/struggle is necessary for evolutionary progress. I mean if the pacifists die out, then who is left to breed?

My take .. major (globally significant) conflict (war) has numerous other destructive / damaging / counter-productive effects ... it doesn't just kill people.

And (My take) this last ~40 years has had a faster and more globally effective negative contributing influence on total global human population ... than any war in history ever has.

WW2 was about ... ~0.6%/yr influence .. around ~14mil/yr .. for all of ~6 yrs.

The ~2Billion .. not born due to reduced % growth rate .. has been about ~0.7%/yr influence .. ~50mil/yr .. on average for ~40 years .. this is larger total , faster , for longer period of time.

[P-hack]

but you are ignoring basic evolutionary mechanisms, I think you miss my point, and thus unintended consequences are made. But perhaps since it will only be felt by future generations (like many other problems) you don't think it worthy of consideration?

I'm not promoting conflict (though reality=results), nor condoning it.

Basic, how we got here, fundamental question (I got a million of 'em):
should you personally care for your own kids more than all the others? equally? less?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

but you are ignoring basic evolutionary mechanisms

Please elaborate.

Because it seemed to me .. like you had done that ignoring of basic evolutionary mechanisms .. with the previous over simplification of fertility .. while ignoring all (non-fertility) factors that influence 'survival of the fittest'.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I think you miss my point, and thus unintended consequences are made.

Perhaps.
Can you re-state / elaborate your point?

You've refused to answer some of my previous probing questions .. which makes it more difficult for me to figure it out.

Originally Posted by P-hack

But perhaps since it will only be felt by future generations (like many other problems) you don't think it worthy of consideration?

Incorrect derogatory 'perhaps' about me.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I'm not promoting conflict , nor condoning it.

Please explain .. I don't see how the 2nd claim agrees with the previous ??

Originally Posted by P-hack

Basic, how we got here, fundamental question (I got a million of 'em):

I'd like you to answer the questions I've asked you as often as I answer yours.

Originally Posted by P-hack

should you personally care for your own kids more than all the others? equally? less?

'should' is very subjective .. and variable depending on specifics of desired outcome , context , etc .. Given that question I can think of numerous various potential answers .. 1st 3 that come to mind.

#1>
For the purpose 'context' of directly my own genetic contribution to the whole of the species .. yes I 'should' care for my own kids more than others.

#2>
However .. as a 'pack' animal it is a benefit to the pack if I cared for the other kids equally to my own .. that benefits the pack .. being a part of a pack benefits me and my kids .. soo in that context there is a potential evolutionary positive feed back that .. I 'should' care for them equally... but only others of my 'pack' , that are part of my 'benefit feedback'.

#3>
If my kid is about to murder/rape/etc someone else .. I 'should' ethically care more about that other innocent/good/etc kid than my own sadistic murder/rapist/etc.

etc ... etc.

[P-hack]

there is a difference between condoning something, and being realistic about it.

So, you don't fault someone for looking after their kids more than someone elses? or if they are part of a pack (or say a "tribe")? unless the actions of the kid disagrees with your moral viewpoint?

[mort]

Originally Posted by P-hack

ok

What happens in the future:

-mort

[P-hack]

circular reasoning hiding behind graphs, like this thread subject.

[niky]

Originally Posted by P-hack

there is a difference between condoning something, and being realistic about it.

So, you don't fault someone for looking after their kids more than someone elses? or if they are part of a pack (or say a "tribe")? unless the actions of the kid disagrees with your moral viewpoint?

Reading what he said, he answered that, from an evolutionary standpoint, he "should"... he doesn't say what value he gives to any of these actions. You're the one assigning values to them for him.

Originally Posted by P-hack

population growth was fairly steady through affluent periods, I don't think affluence, which is largely a matter of perspective, explains everything, or possibly anything, regarding growth or lack of it.

Regardless of what we may think, the statistics paint a fairly consistent picture: The more productive your citizens are, the less children they have.





Do note that a large decrease in fertility is associated with the big depressions in the United States... but they often precede them rather than follow them.

-

If you're looking towards conflict to reduce the population, it's important to note that the Baby Boom was a direct result of World War 2.


More food for thought: