Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Hammer of Los » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:03 am

So, the Easter Islanders became extinct because of their exponential population growth, did they? That's not what my sources say;

wiki wrote:The first-recorded European contact with the island was on April 5 (Easter Sunday), 1722, when Dutch navigator Jacob Roggeveen visited the island for a week and estimated there were 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants on the island. The number may have been greater, since some may have been frightened into hiding by a misunderstanding that led Roggeveen's men to fire on the natives killing more than a dozen men and wounding several more. The next foreign visitors (on November 15, 1770) were two Spanish ships, San Lorenzo and Santa Rosalia. They reported the island as largely uncultivated, with a seashore lined with stone statues. Four years later, in 1774, British explorer James Cook visited Easter Island, he reported the statues as being neglected with some having fallen down. In 1825, the British ship HMS Blossom visited and reported having seen no standing statues in the places they visited. Easter Island was approached many times during the 19th century, but by then the islanders had become openly hostile towards any attempt to land, and very little new information was reported before the 1860s.

A series of devastating events killed or removed almost the entire population of Easter Island in the 1860s. In December 1862, Peruvian slave raiders struck Easter Island. Violent abductions continued for several months, eventually capturing around 1500 men and women, half of the island's population.[18] Among the great many people they captured was the island's paramount chief and his heir as well as those who knew how to read and write Easter Island's rongorongo script, the only evidence of Polynesian script to have been found to date. When the slave raiders were forced to repatriate the people they had kidnapped in several Polynesian islands, they knowingly disembarked carriers of smallpox together with a few survivors on each of the islands, creating devastating epidemics from Easter Island all the way to the Marquesas islands. Easter Island's population was reduced to the point where some of the dead were not even buried. Tuberculosis introduced by whalers in the mid 1800s had already killed several islanders when the first Christian missionary, Eugène Eyraud, died from it in 1867 taking a quarter of the island's population with him. In the following years, the managers of the sheep ranch and the missionaries started buying the newly available lands of the deceased, and this led to great confrontations between the two.

..

Easter Island has suffered from heavy soil erosion in recent centuries, perhaps aggravated by agriculture and massive deforestation. This process seems to have been gradual and may have been aggravated by extensive sheep farming of the Williamson-Balfour Company throughout most of the 20th century. Jakob Roggeveen reported that Easter Island was exceptionally fertile. "Fowls are the only animals they keep. They cultivate bananas, sugar cane, and above all sweet potatoes." In 1786 Jean-François de La Pérouse visited Easter Island and his gardener declared that "three days' work a year" would be enough to support the population.

Rollin, a major in the Pérouse expedition of 1786, wrote, "Instead of meeting with men exhausted by famine... I found, on the contrary, a considerable population, with more beauty and grace than I afterwards met in any other island; and a soil, which, with very little labour, furnished excellent provisions, and in an abundance more than sufficient for the consumption of the inhabitants."


It's pretty obvious you got the idea that the Easter Islanders became extinct because of overpopulation from Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive;

http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/chile/easter_island.html

FROM GENOCIDE TO ECOCIDE: THE RAPE OF RAPA NUI

Published in: Energy & Environment, 16:3&4 (2005), pp. 513-539
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/E ... Peiser.pdf
Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of Science
Liverpool L3 2ET, UK. b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk

The 'decline and fall' of Easter Island and its alleged self-destruction has become the poster child of a new environmentalist historiography, a school of thought that goes hand-in-hand with predictions of environmental disaster. Why did this exceptional civilisation crumble? What drove its population to extinction? These are some of the key questions Jared Diamond endeavours to answer in his new book 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.' According to Diamond, the people of Easter Island destroyed their forest, degraded the island's topsoil, wiped out their plants and drove their animals to extinction. As a result of this self-inflicted environmental devastation, its complex society collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and self-destruction. While his theory of ecocide has become almost paradigmatic in environmental circles, a dark and gory secret hangs over the premise of Easter Island's self-destruction: an actual genocide terminated Rapa Nui's indigenous populace and its culture. Diamond, however, ignores and fails to address the true reasons behind Rapa Nui's collapse. Why has he turned the victims of cultural and physical extermination into the perpetrators of their own demise? This paper is a first attempt to address this disquieting quandary. It describes the foundation of Diamond's environmental revisionism and explains why it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.


Just more pr and marketing from the Malthusian Masters of Disaster, I guess. It's all over the place.

But chill out man, I ain't planning to have no more kids. I'm way too old.

I guess you fellows concerned about overpopulation aren't planning to have any (more), and are doing your best to persuade all your friends and relatives to remain childless. Think of the future.

ps I approve of offering (non-coercive/non-manipulative) birth control options to every human on the planet.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Simulist » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:31 am

Simulist wrote:"The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See"

For anyone with the stomach to sit through what is arguably the most boring — and probably most important — series of YouTube videos you will ever see on this subject, I would highly recommend this:



Here is the playlist for the entire lecture. And here is how it is described on YouTube:

1.4 million views for an old codger giving a lecture about arithmetic? What's going on? You'll just have to watch to see what's so damn amazing about what he (Albert Bartlett) has to say.

I introduce this video to my students as "Perhaps the most boring video you'll ever see, and definitely the most important." But then again, after watching it most said that if you followed along with what the presenter (a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ of Colorado-Boulder) is saying, it's quite easy to pay attention, because it is so damn compelling.

I consider this lecture well-worth the time.

What facts and arithmetic from this lecture — specifically — are being disputed?

(This question implies of course that the video being disputed has actually been watched completely.)
Last edited by Simulist on Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Sounder » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:37 am

Why has he turned the victims of cultural and physical extermination into the perpetrators of their own demise?

Yes, why indeed?

I do love when purported ‘wisdom’ is shown to be nothing but reinforcement of self serving pretences.

Ahh yes- Whitemans disease.

I trust this is a terminal condition.

Then 'this' world can end so that the world may continue.

Thanks Hammer
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby wintler2 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:56 am

Sounder wrote:I do love when purported ‘wisdom’ is shown to be nothing but reinforcement of self serving pretences. Ahh yes- Whitemans disease.


And theres nothing self-serving about the endless-growth delusion, no rich man ever escaped his guilt by claiming theres plenty more opportunity for you poor folks, no conman ever bought an army today on promises of Jam Tomorrow, and the white christian soldiers are in Iraq to bring peace, freedom, and Progress. Normal programming will continue.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Sounder » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:57 am

wintler2, I would rather have addressed the content of your post, but I couldn't understand what you were saying.

And theres nothing self-serving about the endless-growth delusion

Wintler2, you, I and probably every other poster on this board do not support the delusion of endless growth. But using a blatantly false reading of the Easter Island example to support the arguments does a disservice to rationality and provides service to those that prefer to rule by propaganda.

People should gag when presented with utilitarian responses to assertions of ‘truth’.

I was referring to the self-extermination of Easter Islanders as a shibboleth that has been accepted by many educated and ‘aware’ folk.

Whiteman has an amazing ability to divert attention from his crimes by advancing spurious explanations that serve to enable the continuing commission of new crimes. And as long as that explanation is supported by more unconsciously exceptionalist thinking, one can have free reign to screw the common folk while posing as their savior.

I see the endless growth is a delusion folk as sometime enablers of the growthists, because they serve to raise the barriers of entry thereby ensuring continuing power disparity between different actors.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby tazmic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:17 pm

"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby tazmic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:26 pm

"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Elvis » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:54 pm

lupercal wrote:I didn't even need 30 seconds. Come on, this stuff has been around for nearly a century in its current environmental form, and in many other forms before that, but here's a refresher for anyone who doesn't feel like watching genocide pitched like a Veg-a-matic:

Quote:
11-24-03
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics


Whoa...you didn't even watch the videos and you're linking them (and me, almost) with Nazi eugenics? jeez...

Bartlett makes it clear (later on in the series) that he does not favor the ghastly solutions attributed to Malthus, i.e. permitting disease, war, starvation etc. to cull excess population. If Bartlett has said somewhere these things are desirable, or has called for eugenics, I'll be the first to condemn him.

Meanwhile, what's so wrong about family planning? And honest resource management?

many people who take this all seriously aren't necessarily reich wingers


Thank you for that, at least!

sure I'll watch the rest, but I already know where it's going. We've seen this movie many times before and unfortunately it didn't end in 1945.


I should wait for your critique of the Bartlett's lecture after you've watched it all, but above it sounds like you're really second-guessing it.

In the lecture, population growth rates are one side of a coin, petroleum depletion rates are the other side, and there's an overlooked theme in his discussion of publicly bandied numbers for hydrocarbon reserves:

Bartlett shows how, for example, the coal industry arrives at a figure for coal reserves, calculating how long it will last based on current rates of consumption. "Relax, everyone---we have enough coal to last 300 years." Based on current rates, that is, but they don't mention that part. The figure is published, and along the line, someone inflates it to 500 years and publishes that. Then someone inflates it to 1000 years, and the industry---and media---run with that ball. Meanwhile, coal consumption rates rise. The numbers are not only arbitrarily inflated, but meaningless because they're based on current rates of use. Yet they're repeated over and over in the media, and Bartlett asks, "Why is that??" He leaves it to his students to figure out.

There's a lot more to the lecture than just "overpopulation bad!"

Nordic wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Did anyone say ANYTHING about eugenics?


What he said.
And,

Simulist wrote:What facts and arithmetic from this lecture — specifically — are being disputed?

(This question implies of course that the video being disputed has actually been watched completely.)
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7563
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby tazmic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:48 pm

Elvis wrote:[Bartlett] does not favor the ghastly solutions attributed to Malthus, i.e. permitting disease, war, starvation etc. to cull excess population

His argument is not about excess population, and it never was, (he makes no attempt to calculate an ideal population - I imagine he would consider it a secondary problem), it's about understanding the implications of growth combined with finite resource extraction; about the massive difference between linear and exponential consumption.

But he sets up a simplistic picture of the growth we have: all the 'good' things that increase population and all the 'bad' things that decrease population and presents our options as doing one or the other (in video 2).

He then spends an awful long time saying how limited our hydrocarbon resources are.

His analysis doesn't touch upon the negative feedbacks in play and leaves the association that only bad things can provide the 'much needed' reduction in population growth. Reduction of growth remember, not population. I'm not sure that is clear enough by the end of the video. And if it's not, it should be.

In this sense it is unremarkable and offers nothing to help us understand the actual world's population dynamics.

But it may leave people thinking 'there are too many people', or serve to bolster those who believe so, even though that would be missing the point.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Nordic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:08 pm

and leaves the association that only bad things can provide the 'much needed' reduction in population growth


He does this facetiously, and to make a point.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby lupercal » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:42 pm

tazmic wrote:
Elvis wrote:[Bartlett] does not favor the ghastly solutions attributed to Malthus, i.e. permitting disease, war, starvation etc. to cull excess population

His argument is not about excess population, and it never was, (he makes no attempt to calculate an ideal population - I imagine he would consider it a secondary problem), it's about understanding the implications of growth combined with finite resource extraction; about the massive difference between linear and exponential consumption.

But he sets up a simplistic picture of the growth we have: all the 'good' things that increase population and all the 'bad' things that decrease population and presents our options as doing one or the other (in video 2).

He then spends an awful long time saying how limited our hydrocarbon resources are.

His analysis doesn't touch upon the negative feedbacks in play and leaves the association that only bad things can provide the 'much needed' reduction in population growth. Reduction of growth remember, not population. I'm not sure that is clear enough by the end of the video. And if it's not, it should be.

In this sense it is unremarkable and offers nothing to help us understand the actual world's population dynamics.

But it may leave people thinking 'there are too many people', or serve to bolster those who believe so, even though that would be missing the point.

Bingo. It's that two-column powerpoint slide in clip 2 that really gives away the game. It's basically a winger make-the-world-a-hell-hole wish list for spooks and white guys in Texas and Colorado (okay, everywhere) who think the best "solution" to their perceived and manufactured problems is to exterminate the people who created their wealth for them.

p.s. Elvis I watched the first three clips, as I said before, and will watch the rest at some convenient moment, but yes, I recognized the line of thinking, if you can call it that, immediately. I've seen it many times before, and so has the world, as can see yourself from the eugenics article.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby tazmic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:09 pm

Nordic wrote:
and leaves the association that only bad things can provide the 'much needed' reduction in population growth

He does this facetiously, and to make a point.

Yeah, I didn't notice (working), although it wouldn't surprise me.

[edit] But we should still consider what the casual reader (ahem) will take from this, how it operates as the director of thought it's intended to be and in the way that it's framed. Which is what I started previously. We are not just going to sit around and argue if he's factually correct are we? Oh hang on...[/edit]

Incidentally, for those unable to 'get' or verify the rather hasty 'remember 70 and divide by the growth percent' formula, it er...checks out, and is also based on the natural logarithm being close to linear for small values around one, not just the approximation for the natural log of 2. His formula actually underestimates the 'time to double' (overestimating the problem)*, but not by anything worth fretting over, unless it's 50% growth, which for this context wouldn't exactly require a lot of accuracy anyway.

*Just had a look, and it overestimates (underestimating the problem) for values less than roughly 2%, but by even less. (Oops, geeked out...)
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby tazmic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:12 pm

But it may leave people thinking 'there are too many people', or serve to bolster those who believe so, even though that would be missing the point.

In fact, given his premise, shouldn't we expect this? ;)
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby Nordic » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:49 pm

But it may leave people thinking 'there are too many people', or serve to bolster those who believe so, even though that would be missing the point.


But there ARE too many fucking people. And okay, if you say that "right now there AREN'T too many fucking people", very soon there are most definitely going to be too many fucking people.

What part of the math are people not fucking getting here?

Pointing out there are too many fucking people does not mean you want to indiscriminately (or selectively) slaughter those people. WTF is wrong with people's thought patterns here?

At what point will those of you who are screaming "eugnics! Nazis!" and bullshit like that THINK that there are too many fucking people? When we've exterminated every last species on earth besides ourselves and Monsanto frankenfood crops? (oh, along with the ants and roaches and robotic honeybees since the real ones are all dead)?

I mean, come on, you guys really need to explain what you find so wrong about pointing out the obvious.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

Postby barracuda » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:22 pm

Nordic wrote:I mean, come on, you guys really need to explain what you find so wrong about pointing out the obvious.


Well, Nordic, it's because it's really not all that obvious that there are too many people. At all. There are certainly too many people to live the self-indulgent and wasteful lifestyles of the average affluent westerner. But, as was explained upthread and has been pointed out many times in these discussions, the problems suffered by the great masses of suffering persons on this planet are problems associated with greed, war, industrial capitalism, and so on. Obviously, these are the same problems which are destroying the biosphere. Obviously, they are issues that have nothing to do with too many people. They are issues that would still be causing planetary damage and human suffering if there were only a so-called "sustainable" population on earth. I think the earth could probably comfortably sustain a thousand billion people. Unfortunately, in order for this to happen, people would have to act responsibly, same as if there were only two persons on the whole ball of dirt. You know, there are a quadrillion ants here already. We have some catching up to do.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests