World Population Expected To Hit 7 Billion On Halloween

You should expect more than ghosts, spirits and candy when Halloween arrives this year. On October 31, 2011, the world will welcome its seven billionth person, according to the United Nations Population Fund.

Reaching such a large global population would have fascinated 19th century theorist Thomas Malthus. According to the Financial Times, Malthus argued -- at a time when the world's population was under 1 billion -- the birth rate had to be lowered to prevent the famine and violence that would come with overpopulation.

Human ingenuity and technology have played a big part in defying Malthus, but there's no doubt the population explosion has taken a toll on the earth's resources. As Treehugger reported, the population spike since the 18th century has contributed a whole slew of environmental issues, including soil erosion and dwindling wild fish populations.

The Center for Biological Diversity has launched an advocacy campaign pegged to the 7 billion mark to highlight overpopulation and its impact on endangered plants and animals. As part of the "7 Billion and Counting" campaign, the center is giving out 100,000 endangered species condoms to a network of 1,200 volunteer distributors in all 50 states.

Comments

[BoFo]

04:17 PM on 10/02/2011

First Part

xanas wrote:

"...but if you are saying the state doesn't use force I've got to wonder if you've paid any attention to all the laws we pass that restrict all kinds of activities­.."

I never claimed that the state doesn't use force, and there are definitely many laws that are excessively restrictive and which should be eliminated, but the state also has many important and valuable functions that enhance the quality of life for everyone. For any society to function, some personal freedoms have to be moderated for the common good. It's called cooperation. The state isn't some alien, independently-evolved entity that just showed up on the scene one day with the idea of oppressing everyone -- it was created by people for the purpose of facilitating the organization of civilization.

[SKSagar]

03:17 AM on 09/30/2011

Let’s talk about the `Anthropic Principle`:
The first kind of the Anthropic Principle is that the constants of nature are fine tuned to enable conscious beings to emerge and understand the universe. But this First kind of AP may not be Earth centric. Our human civilization might be among the top one hundred technologically advanced civilizations in the Milky way, but we will not reach the top ten as we will self destruct ourselves long before that. Population explosion, depletion of resources, and ensuing nuclear wars will lead us towards that road to self destruction.
But there may be a second kind of Anthropic Principle that may be working to `create probabilities` that may lead towards an understanding among these conscious beings that `Good sense must prevail, that countries of the World must come together to formulate and implement plans to take adequate measures to reverse the trend of rising population with incentives for good compliance and sharp disincentives for non compliance.
The realization to this effect may not manifest in time before one or more nuclear wars wipe off large chunks of population particularly from the densely populated zones. Some important and responsible nations may be aware of this likelihood and may present a blind eye to such developments. Perhaps this is how the second kind of AP is working.

[BoFo]

01:52 AM on 09/30/2011

Second Part

The bottom line is this:

Your solution is to eliminate the state, or at least reduce it to an absolute minimum. The problem with that is that it eliminates many of the important and valuable functions of the state. A simplistic solution which, if carried out, would only benefit those who have accumulated a highly-disproportionate share of wealth and power by nefarious means.

My solution is to address the details. For example, ending the abuse of government resources by business entities for their own benefit would end most of the activities of the US military on foreign soil. The state however, as mentioned above, serves many important organizational functions that serve the common good. The size and/or power of the state is not the issue, it's what the state does with that size and power.

You seem to reject the concept of the commons. Very sad. You also probably think that we would be better of with 50, totally-independent states, or maybe even thousands of totally-independent metropolitan areas, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of totally-independent neighborhoods, or maybe even millions of totally-independent clans. Then we'd all be free of that nasty gubment stuff.

[xanas]

01:34 AM on 10/01/2011

Which functions do you think are eliminated, specifically? Why do you think they would be eliminated? You don't think that those functions can't be agreed to voluntarily by enough people that care about them?

How do you plan to "end the abuse of government resources by business entities"? It seems far more likely to me that you replace one evil with another, as this rhetoric is not entirely dissimilar to that of some despots. Those who overcome the powerful with force tend not to be the best sorts of people.

This isn't to say I want special interests to win, but to say that I think the proper way to deal with them is to eliminate their privileges that they were granted by those in power through the use of force. In other words, no bailouts, no limited liability, no subsidies or corporate welfare, etc.

I don't reject the concept of the commons,, but I do reject that the "public goods" problem as something that requires force be used.
1) dealing with free riders at the core is an entrepreneurial problem, it's up to those providing service to figure out the best way to handle that. I'm
2) The benefits of some services are great enough that it's worth having despite any potential free riders

[BoFo]

01:51 AM on 09/30/2011

xanas wrote:

"...but if you are saying the state doesn't use force I've got to wonder if you've paid any attention to all the laws we pass that restrict all kinds of activities­.."

I never claimed that the state doesn't use force, and there are definitely many laws that are excessively restrictive and which should be eliminated, but the state also has many important and valuable functions that enhance the quality of life for everyone. For any society to function, some personal freedoms have to be moderated for the common good. It's called cooperation. The state isn't some alien, independently-evolved entity that just showed up on the scene one day with the idea of oppressing everyone -- it was created by people for the purpose of facilitating the organization of civilization.

[xanas]

01:12 AM on 10/01/2011

I think in some form we both agree that "some personal freedoms" are moderated for the common good, though I would say that the only freedoms that must be "moderated" are those that are self-defeating, aka, you can't steal and you can't murder or assault or commit fraud, for if the same was done in turn everyone would be dead or destitute and would have no reasons to save or cooperate at all.

The special thing about the state is it's a monopoly of "legal" violence. My claim isn't that it showed up to "oppress everyone" but rather that it was a naturally arising institution from the desire of those who wanted to gain more easily from others by using force. It's always easier to steal than to create, and so there were warlords and roving bands of thugs throughout history. The state was different in that it gained some legitimacy by providing protection services in a manner not dissimilar to the mafia.

The reason these last centuries have been so much different is the enlightenment and capitalism. For a very brief period of human history we had freed ourselves from protectionist dogma and realized the true benefit of the division of labor hindered significantly less by the state than in the past.

We could easily regress.

[BoFo]

11:55 AM on 10/03/2011

Most traffic laws exist to provide a framework for cooperation among drivers so that driving a vehicle is safer and more efficient for everyone. Traffic signals allow for a steady stream of traffic in one direction, followed by a steady stream of cross traffic, and intermittent pedestrian crossing.

I like stop signs and traffic lights, and the laws that impose penalties for those who ignore them, because they protect me from aggressive (violent, forceful) drivers who think that their desire to get somewhere quickly is more important than the safety of others. People who barrel through red lights endanger the lives of everyone else on the road, so yes, xanas, the municipal government uses FORCE, in the form of fines and/or imprisonment and/or suspension of driving privileges, to achieve compliance with traffic-safety laws.

According to your warped way of thinking, it's wrong to use the force cited above to prevent a reckless driver from violently endangering the lives of other drivers. Your solution would be that everyone should just agree to drive safely. "Waaaaa,......I'm not going to let that nasty gubment force me to stop and tell me when I can go.........waaaaaaaaaaa!"

The above is also a metaphor for the larger picture.

Sorry xanas, but your comments are so devoid of historical facts or of any relationship to the real world that I'm just not willing to waste any more time trying to have a meaningful dialog with you.

[xanas]

01:40 AM on 10/01/2011

Also, thanks for giving a much more serious reply here. While I doubt we'll come to any real agreement at least this discussion is more useful for understanding the actual positions.

[dispagi]

05:15 PM on 09/26/2011

Approximately 38 per cent of pregnancies worldwide are totally unplanned. If you want to naturally limit population growth without infringing upon human rights, providing proper sex-ed and universal access to birth control is the way to go.

[Okey Umez]

10:00 PM on 09/26/2011

The Vatican will probably disagree with you. Shoot, the tea baggers already disagree with you!!.

[oftenon]

10:37 PM on 09/26/2011

"Shoot the tea baggers already" - how'd that pass the censors?

[Jacqueline Homan]

10:54 PM on 09/26/2011

In the on-going war on women a key budget battle is looming. The opening salvo of this fight came in late July when the House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee approved a 25% cut in international family planning assistance for FY2012.

Along with the cut in funding, the Subcommittee also voted for two policy-related restrictions: a ban on any support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and reinstatement of the global “gag rule” that President Obama repealed by executive order during his first month in office. The gag rule prevents foreign organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance from using their own non-U.S. funds to perform abortions. In countries where abortion is legal, it also bars them from referring patients to an abortion service provider. In countries where abortion is illegal, it bars family planning providers from advocating for its legalization.

The Guttmacher Institute has calculated that cutting U.S. family planning assistance by 25% would result in:
• 9.4 million fewer women and couples receiving contraceptive services
• Almost 3 million more unintended pregnancies
• 1.3 million more abortions (mostly unsafe)
• 1.3 million more unplanned births
• 7,700 more maternal deaths

[iknowscottyknows]

04:17 PM on 09/26/2011

The Greenists hate people.

[kwinter]

02:39 PM on 09/26/2011

Impossible, there can't be that many people!

From 2 to 7,000,000,000 in 6000 years?

[iknowscottyknows]

04:15 PM on 09/26/2011

Right now it takes approx. 12 years to add another billion.

[kwinter]

12:28 PM on 09/27/2011

That's quite different than going from 2 people to 7,000,000,­000 in 6000 years.

But come to think of it, I was forgetting about the flood about 4400 years ago.
So, we went from 8 people to 7,000,000,000 in about 4400 years?

That's what the buybull says!

[Okey Umez]

10:01 PM on 09/26/2011

The phenomenon is called flushing.

[anti politricks]

12:38 PM on 09/26/2011

we are earth's cancer

[iknowscottyknows]

04:15 PM on 09/26/2011

The core philosophy of the environmental movement. And clearly defined for all.

[HeevenSteven]

11:54 AM on 09/26/2011

The slow motion apocalypse.

[JohnFromCensornati]

11:09 AM on 09/26/2011

Blessed are the anti-birth-controllers for they shall inherit the earth and swarm it like locusts.

[FullFrontal]

10:19 AM on 09/26/2011

i'm all for freedom of speech/expression but for the sake of our population, i agree with the chinese government trying to curb population growth. although, i believe their intentions are more political/oppressive in nature

[Okey Umez]

10:03 PM on 09/26/2011

You dont know the Chinese very well, do ya?!.

[Meltdown71]

09:20 AM on 09/26/2011

6 Billion was the point of no return. The really sad part is, the powers that want to capitalize on it. Food and Water will become the new Gold standard. America could be self sufficient, Last man standing so they say!

[anti politricks]

12:20 PM on 09/26/2011

are we capable of being self sufficient?

maybe with lots of learning. but as a culture and society now, i'd say super fail on self sufficiency.

[Okey Umez]

10:05 PM on 09/26/2011

If you believe the last part of your post, you are whistling dixie!.

[didemaydogan]

01:00 AM on 09/26/2011

god and what is worse is in next 30 years there wont be enough seed,water,clean energy,an earth to support 10 billion.
when do they have the time to do kids :)i dont get it...it is a huge responsibility and 3. world countries should be trained to use condoms.

[Okey Umez]

10:06 PM on 09/26/2011

Wouldn't worry about that. Remember, cannibalism?!.

[Elmgreen11]

03:29 AM on 10/25/2011

mmm..... soylent green.....

[onkelpetey]

11:53 PM on 09/25/2011

It's hard for me to believe that the number for the population is that high when you have mass murders being committed everyday around the world (i.e. Mexico, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.). Or are they still counting as alive those already dead like the government has with giving out funds? http://www.progress.org/tcs136.htm
http://money.msn.com/identity-theft/article.aspx?post=e319fcb3-fa07-41d7-ad05-c829df544437&ucsort=4
I think maybe the numbers are getting fudged.

[anti politricks]

12:41 PM on 09/26/2011

mass murder could mean anything from 100-10000.
and these aren't every day occurrences.

on the other hand, the global birth rate every day: 360,000 births per day

[Okey Umez]

10:08 PM on 09/26/2011

Always had a problem with fuzzy math!.

[Jim Milks]

08:22 PM on 09/25/2011

It took until 1804 for the global human population to reach 1 billion for the first time. The time to hit 7 billion? Just 207 years after that. As any biology student *should* be able to tell you, anytime a species experiences exponential population growth (and yes, going from 1 billion to 7 billion in 207 years counts for a mammal with our life history traits), what normally follows is a population crash as the environment that supported that exponential growth is degraded to the point where it cannot support that species. And from reading the recent research reports, it looks like environmental degradation of the very ecosystems we need to survive is well underway. What we need at this time is for strong leadership around the world that will look beyond short-term gains or losses and look toward the long-term future, managing the resources of this planet for long-term, sustainable use. Unfortunately, the leadership we currently have in the US is all about short-term gains regardless of the long-term consequences.