Comments on: NPG http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123 Ian Lance Taylor Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:05:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on NPG by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9441 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:16:12 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9441 I agree that GDP and population increase together, but I think you have the causation wrong. Before the industrial revolution, most populations were near their Malthusian limits, barring temporary downturns like the Black Death. The industrial revolution permitted population to expand. Population really started exploding after new medical technologies were developed. I don't see any strong evidence that larger population led to new ideas. I see the reverse: new ideas led to larger population. I do think that Catholicism contributes to high population growth rates in countries like Guatemala and Honduras. But I admit that the highest population growth rates are in very poor countries, where children are a form of wealth rather than being expenses. I still think the issue is relevant, because we know that population growth rates go down as wealth increases, but the Catholic church is opposed to that. That said, I admit that I may be overstating their influence. Italy is low on the charts. Ireland, on the other hand, is higher than one would expect, equal to Bolivia. I agree that GDP and population increase together, but I think you have the causation wrong. Before the industrial revolution, most populations were near their Malthusian limits, barring temporary downturns like the Black Death. The industrial revolution permitted population to expand. Population really started exploding after new medical technologies were developed. I don’t see any strong evidence that larger population led to new ideas. I see the reverse: new ideas led to larger population.

I do think that Catholicism contributes to high population growth rates in countries like Guatemala and Honduras. But I admit that the highest population growth rates are in very poor countries, where children are a form of wealth rather than being expenses. I still think the issue is relevant, because we know that population growth rates go down as wealth increases, but the Catholic church is opposed to that. That said, I admit that I may be overstating their influence. Italy is low on the charts. Ireland, on the other hand, is higher than one would expect, equal to Bolivia.

]]> Comment on NPG by: fche http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9429 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:37:24 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9429 > For whatever reason, it is clearly historically false that a larger population leads to > better ideas, or to a better society. So if we want to make our society get better, > having more children is exactly the wrong approach. That history may apply to other countries, but in any reasonably developed country, the curves of population and e.g. GDP growth are parallel. (I hope you don't have a paragraph ready trying to explain how e.g. the US has had worse ideas and society as it grew. I'm sure such a belief would put you into a minority.) > 1) As far as I know, of the various world religions, Catholicism is the only one which > prohibits birth control. Well OK, but why do you believe that catholicism's attitude is in fact responsible for any meaningful portion of current population growth? In other words, do you believe that those places with the highest reproductive rates are that way because of their priests? If in fact their religious policy is not responsible, then singling them out this way is pointless. > For whatever reason, it is clearly historically false that a larger population leads to
> better ideas, or to a better society. So if we want to make our society get better,
> having more children is exactly the wrong approach.

That history may apply to other countries, but in any reasonably developed country,
the curves of population and e.g. GDP growth are parallel. (I hope you don’t have a
paragraph ready trying to explain how e.g. the US has had worse ideas and society
as it grew. I’m sure such a belief would put you into a minority.)

> 1) As far as I know, of the various world religions, Catholicism is the only one which
> prohibits birth control.

Well OK, but why do you believe that catholicism’s attitude is in fact responsible for any
meaningful portion of current population growth? In other words, do you believe that
those places with the highest reproductive rates are that way because of their priests?
If in fact their religious policy is not responsible, then singling them out this way is
pointless.

]]> Comment on NPG by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9390 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:47:34 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9390 I can't imagine any possible technology which would permit the population of the Earth to increase without limit. OK, I take it back, I can imagine one: complete virtualization of all inhabitants, so that we only exist in computer generated worlds. Short of that, as I said, regardless of what we believe the resource limit is, it is clear that there is a limit. As far as who should cut back on baby production, I have a few comments. 1) As far as I know, of the various world religions, Catholicism is the only one which prohibits birth control. There are some Islamic and Judaic leaders who argue against birth control, but there is no determined position against it as there is with Catholicism. 2) While children often share the beliefs of their parents, they often don't. It does not make sense to promote your ideas by having more children. It makes much more sense to promote them by making them attractive to everybody, including your children. 3) Having more children is actually a sign of poverty. It traps you into consuming resources purely to keep society going, rather than to improve it. For whatever reason, it is clearly historically false that a larger population leads to better ideas, or to a better society. So if we want to make our society get better, having more children is exactly the wrong approach. 4) What really counts when it comes to the limits of the Earth is not population per se, but overall resource usage. People in the U.S. use far more resources than people in, say, Africa. Some estimates say the ratio is about 25 to 1 these days. Of course this is due to point 3. I can’t imagine any possible technology which would permit the population of the Earth to increase without limit. OK, I take it back, I can imagine one: complete virtualization of all inhabitants, so that we only exist in computer generated worlds. Short of that, as I said, regardless of what we believe the resource limit is, it is clear that there is a limit.

As far as who should cut back on baby production, I have a few comments.

1) As far as I know, of the various world religions, Catholicism is the only one which prohibits birth control. There are some Islamic and Judaic leaders who argue against birth control, but there is no determined position against it as there is with Catholicism.

2) While children often share the beliefs of their parents, they often don’t. It does not make sense to promote your ideas by having more children. It makes much more sense to promote them by making them attractive to everybody, including your children.

3) Having more children is actually a sign of poverty. It traps you into consuming resources purely to keep society going, rather than to improve it. For whatever reason, it is clearly historically false that a larger population leads to better ideas, or to a better society. So if we want to make our society get better, having more children is exactly the wrong approach.

4) What really counts when it comes to the limits of the Earth is not population per se, but overall resource usage. People in the U.S. use far more resources than people in, say, Africa. Some estimates say the ratio is about 25 to 1 these days. Of course this is due to point 3.

]]> Comment on NPG by: fche http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9331 Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:26:21 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/123#comment-9331 > Population growth must stop. Regardless of what we believe the resource limit of the planet is, it is > clear that there is a limit. If population growth continues, we will hit that limit. OK, unless of course that limit is itself a function of our population. Specifically, modernists may argue that increased technology produced by a larger, wealthier developed nation such as your own very fine country could result in supporting far more people than the technologies available based on today's population. > Therefore, it is essential for our long-term pleasant existence on this planet that the Catholic > Church, and other organizations opposed to birth control, change their position. I'm as atheist as the next guy, but I have a growing respect for some aspects of several western religions, for example to the extent that they helped form our civilization. If it were really a problem, I'd rather have The Other Guy cut back on his baby production than us good guys. > Population growth must stop. Regardless of what we believe the resource limit of the planet is, it is
> clear that there is a limit. If population growth continues, we will hit that limit.

OK, unless of course that limit is itself a function of our population. Specifically, modernists may
argue that increased technology produced by a larger, wealthier developed nation such as your
own very fine country could result in supporting far more people than the technologies available
based on today’s population.

> Therefore, it is essential for our long-term pleasant existence on this planet that the Catholic
> Church, and other organizations opposed to birth control, change their position.

I’m as atheist as the next guy, but I have a growing respect for some aspects of several
western religions, for example to the extent that they helped form our civilization.
If it were really a problem, I’d rather have The Other Guy cut back on his baby
production than us good guys.

]]>