World Population, Extreme Poverty, And Resources

[Meadowchik]

Hey all,

 

I've watched Hans Rosling before and his command of complicated topics is impressive.  Mostly, though, he presents them so well that it's easier to develop a good understanding of the global trends of population, poverty, and resources.

 

The latest video is called "Don't Panic" and I loved it.  My 14 year old son watched it with me and stayed engaged for the entire hour:

 

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

 

Unless this is your area of specialty, most likely this video will contain information that will surprise you. What would you guess to be the fertility rate of Bangladesh, for example? Is it closest to 2, 4, or 6?  Most people get this wrong, even worse than random answers because of their preconceived notions about country populations.  Roughly, how many billions of the world are suffering in extreme poverty, living on approximately 1 dollar a day in income? One, two, three, or four?  What does the year for "peak child" represent and what is that year?  How many, more or less, people will there be once current population trends level out?  You didn't know they're expected to level out?  That's another surprise for you, then!

 

So I highly recommend this video because it's full of information that interests me and I'd love to talk about it without anyone else who found it interesting.

 

Any takers?

 

It'd also be fascinating to think of this in gospel terms if we can get that far...

[bluebell]

It sounds incredibly interesting, but is it really an hour long?  I hate watching videos anyway-i would prefer to read something than watch it-and it's hard to find an hour that i want to spend watching something on my computer.

[thesometimesaint]

It is not the absolute numbers of people that really matters so much. The earth could support probably 25 billion people. It is the lifestyle they all want to live that really matters. 25 billion people living like the poor Bangladesh farmers isn't something that appeals to most people including the Bangladesh.

[BlueDreams]

It sounds incredibly interesting, but is it really an hour long?  I hate watching videos anyway-i would prefer to read something than watch it-and it's hard to find an hour that i want to spend watching something on my computer.

 He's more entertaining than most statisticians if it makes you feel better. I watched about 5 minutes of this and realized I'd already watched it before. Basically the idea is that the model of ever increasing population is a myth. Over time people naturally will shrink in family size. The reason being that there is less need for large families with growing health and lowered mortality and there is more pressure for smaller families with urbanization and general changes in lifestyle. (If I'm remembering correctly).

[Meadowchik]

 He's more entertaining than most statisticians if it makes you feel better. I watched about 5 minutes of this and realized I'd already watched it before. Basically the idea is that the model of ever increasing population is a myth. Over time people naturally will shrink in family size. The reason being that there is less need for large families with growing health and lowered mortality and there is more pressure for smaller families with urbanization and general changes in lifestyle. (If I'm remembering correctly).

I've seen him do shorter talks but this is the most comprehensive and includes videos of families in Bangladesh and Mozambique, which were moving and inspiring.

[Meadowchik]

It sounds incredibly interesting, but is it really an hour long?  I hate watching videos anyway-i would prefer to read something than watch it-and it's hard to find an hour that i want to spend watching something on my computer.

 

This video is an example of video being more clear than text, in large part because of the graphics for the statistics.  IMO, it really is worth it. 

 

Let the laundry build up and then watch it while you fold

[Meadowchik]

It is not the absolute numbers of people that really matters so much. The earth could support probably 25 billion people. It is the lifestyle they all want to live that really matters. 25 billion people living like the poor Bangladesh farmers isn't something that appeals to most people including the Bangladesh.

 

And we're actually headed towards 11 billion, more or less.  The 4 billion that will be added on will basically be a result of the current populations living longer lives. 

 

I find it wonderful that this is happening basically as a result of educated and increased standards of living.

 

A major sticking point, however, is that only about 1 billion of the current 7 use roughly half the world's resources. We need to find a way to consume less and waste less.  Personally, for that and other reasons I want to eat less meat, eat more local and unprocessed foods, and buy less stuff.  Focus more on experiences instead of things.

 

Anyone living on more than about 10 dollars a day belongs to the wealthier half of the world's population, btw.  The wealthiest 1 billion live on 100 dollars or more a day.  Everyone else, less. It kind of reminds me how very rich "we" are, and when I say "we," I mean those of us who can afford a home with heating, hot and running water, electricity, a washing machine, car, and food.  We have more than the majority of people on the planet, and then when you consider everyone who has ever lived, it is so very humbling.

 

What am I doing with my blessings?

 

Edited September 28, 2015 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

 

 

A major sticking point, however, is that only about 1 billion of the current 7 use roughly half the world's resources. We need to find a way to consume less and waste less.  Personally, for that and other reasons I want to eat less meat, eat more local and unprocessed foods, and buy less stuff.  Focus more on experiences instead of things.

 

 

I actually just read some articles on the problems of eating locally.  

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/book-excerpt-why-eating-global-is-more-sustainable-than-eating-local

 

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/the-downside-of-eating-too-locally.html?_r=0

 

Not that the idea being eating locally isn't a good one.  I just thought it was really interesting how often we, as humans, try to do the right thing and then end up doing it all wrong, or at least fighting the wrong fight.  

[The Nehor]

A major sticking point, however, is that only about 1 billion of the current 7 use roughly half the world's resources. We need to find a way to consume less and waste less.  Personally, for that and other reasons I want to eat less meat, eat more local and unprocessed foods, and buy less stuff.  Focus more on experiences instead of things.

 

As one of those at the higher end of the top billion if we share that will mean less for me. Will no one think of the wealthy? 

[thesometimesaint]

And we're actually headed towards 11 billion, more or less.  The 4 billion that will be added on will basically be a result of the current populations living longer lives. 

 

I find it wonderful that this is happening basically as a result of educated and increased standards of living.

 

A major sticking point, however, is that only about 1 billion of the current 7 use roughly half the world's resources. We need to find a way to consume less and waste less.  Personally, for that and other reasons I want to eat less meat, eat more local and unprocessed foods, and buy less stuff.  Focus more on experiences instead of things.

 

Anyone living on more than about 10 dollars a day belongs to the wealthier half of the world's population, btw.  The wealthiest 1 billion live on 100 dollars or more a day.  Everyone else, less. It kind of reminds me how very rich "we" are, and when I say "we," I mean those of us who can afford a home with heating, hot and running water, electricity, a washing machine, car, and food.  We have more than the majority of people on the planet, and then when you consider everyone who has ever lived, it is so very humbling.

 

What am I doing with my blessings?

 

 

 

By American standards I'm comfortably upper middle class, and am well aware of the great gifts just being American provides to me. However I do realize that many in the US live on $2.00/day or less. Third World countries do even worse.

 

The Lord has well blessed me so I acutely feel the responsibility and share generously with those in need.

[Meadowchik]

I actually just read some articles on the problems of eating locally.  

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/book-excerpt-why-eating-global-is-more-sustainable-than-eating-local

 

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/the-downside-of-eating-too-locally.html?_r=0

 

Not that the idea being eating locally isn't a good one.  I just thought it was really interesting how often we, as humans, try to do the right thing and then end up doing it all wrong, or at least fighting the wrong fight.  

 

All those articles are talking about essentially burning down the agriculture house and building a new one in its place.  That's not what I was talking about.  We have a garden and we're trying to keep it alive.  I like to buy produce when I can that is local and, by default, in season. It's fresher and does require less water (because we live in a relatively humid climate that doesn't require water-re-allocation to farm) and less resources.

 

Have you read about the tremendous amount it costs to produce meat at the rates we're doing in America? In water and grain? The irony is that by large proportions we're eating too much! :/

[Meadowchik]

As one of those at the higher end of the top billion if we share that will mean less for me. Will no one think of the wealthy? 

 

In the video, Rosling recounts the day his family bought a washing machine.  His grandmother was invited over and was allowed to push the button to turn it on.  Here was a lady who raised 7 children, washing all their laundry by hand.  She pushed the button, sat down, and watched the entire cycle.

 

Rosling's mom told him that now that she didn't have to do so much work for the wash, they could read more books.  And they did

[bluebell]

All those articles are talking about essentially burning down the agriculture house and building a new one in its place.  That's not what I was talking about.  We have a garden and we're trying to keep it alive.  I like to buy produce when I can that is local and, by default, in season. It's fresher and does require less water (because we live in a relatively humid climate that doesn't require water-re-allocation to farm) and less resources.

 

Have you read about the tremendous amount it costs to produce meat at the rates we're doing in America? In water and grain? The irony is that by large proportions we're eating too much! :/

 

Yes, i do get the problems with cattle.

[ERayR]

Yes, i do get the problems with cattle.

 

What you all seem to be missing is that livestock turn resources not readily usable by man into high quality protein readily usable by man.  Cattle eat grass and other forage.  Do you think you can live on grass.  Not very digestible for man. Swine and poultry can utilize grains that are not up to human consumption standards.

[Meadowchik]

Yes, i do get the problems with cattle.

 

Then, there's the sheer amount of waste in food production. 

 

Basically, the world is getting more complicated and we have to learn how to think in more complexity.  Addressing emergent issues will be important to avoid doing what you referred to before, causing harm with good intentions.  On the other hand, sometimes it's simple goodness that wins.

 

Years ago, I was debating someone who believed in mandatory sterilization in order to preserve limited resources. She was bold enough to claim everyone should be sterilized after having 2 children of their own, but then when asked to decrease her excessive consumption, she balked. No way, she said.

In case you're curious, my argument was that a government imposition would be disastrous, because it takes away perhaps the most important common resource for civilization: trust, essentially. Forcing people and controlling people that much and that intimately would be uncivilized. So, after putting my own trust into "better treatment" and self-determination as a value worth preserving, it is extremely gratifying to me that overpopulation basically solves itself when people basically treat each other better (which includes innovation) and have the freedom to choose their own paths.

It's not just gratifying, it's awesome.

[Meadowchik]

What you all seem to be missing is that livestock turn resources not readily usable by man into high quality protein readily usable by man.  Cattle eat grass and other forage.  Do you think you can live on grass.  Not very digestible for man. Swine and poultry can utilize grains that are not up to human consumption standards.

 

Yet, much of the time the people eating the beef don't even need it, they want it.  This, while the limited resource of, say, freshwater or farmable lands are being used to produce it. 

 

It is obvious that we waste too much.

[bluebell]

What you all seem to be missing is that livestock turn resources not readily usable by man into high quality protein readily usable by man.  Cattle eat grass and other forage.  Do you think you can live on grass.  Not very digestible for man. Swine and poultry can utilize grains that are not up to human consumption standards.

 

I'm from wyoming and cattle ranching is a thing i'm fairly familiar with.  When cattle are put to pasture, you are absolutely correct.  And that's how pretty much all ranchers keep their cattle alive until they are ready to send them to slaughter.   Some even put them on open range so they really aren't using many resources at all-nature is doing everything.

 

But that's not how it works all the time.  When a rancher wants to send their cattle to slaughter (once the cattle has reached a minimum weight), they typically send them first to a feedlot where they can spend all of their time eating as much grain (typically corn) as possible.  This corn used resources to grow, at lot of them usually, that then can't be used on other veggies or people.   It depends on what numbers you are using but it's about 2.5 lbs of corn to produce a lb of beef.

 

If you want to understand the connection between corn and beef in our country just look at how much the price of beef goes up when corn becomes more expensive to produce or for ranchers to buy.  There is a definite link that can't be ignored.

 

It's just something to be aware of.  In place where hunger and water aren't issues then the resources used probably don't mean anything.  It's during drought and times of famine that it becomes a problem.

[BlueDreams]

What you all seem to be missing is that livestock turn resources not readily usable by man into high quality protein readily usable by man.  Cattle eat grass and other forage.  Do you think you can live on grass.  Not very digestible for man. Swine and poultry can utilize grains that are not up to human consumption standards.

 

As blue bell mentioned, Cattle nowadays are only in part raised on grass. But even if they were there would still be an environmental cost for the amount of meat we* consume. We, in aggregate, eat too much and the amount is unsustainable. Environments that were not meant for cattle are now being used for them and transformed into cattle/livestock friendly areas at the cost of the natural environment. For example the majority of the loss of the amazon rainforest is from agribusinesss. In the U.S. regions that cannot sustain cattle or don't have natural grasslands...are still being used for cattle and are depleting limited resources. This is also not placing factors such as runoff, which effects the water ways and marine life. Or the fact that part of their diet is actually unnatural to them and readily edible to humans.

 

 Due to the amount of resources needed to make many of these animals, their meat is actually a highly inefficient source of protein in terms of energy cost and environmental expenditure.   

 

*we is used as a generalization for many a developed nation's diet (and particularly an american one). I don't know your particular diet and I don't actually eat meat (though I do eat eggs and dairy).   

Edited September 29, 2015 by BlueDreams

[rodheadlee]

Yet, much of the time the people eating the beef don't even need it, they want it.  This, while the limited resource of, say, freshwater or farmable lands are being used to produce it. 

 

It is obvious that we waste too much.

Here is a song for you.

[The Nehor]

Here is a song for you.

 

Here is a good instructional video about the necessity of eating meat:

 

[Meadowchik]

Here is a song for you.

 

Why???

[Meadowchik]

Here is a good instructional video about the necessity of eating meat:

 

 

My teen daughter, as part of becoming more conscientious, decided on her own to be vegetarian several months ago and is now trying to transition to veganism.  She's sent me the videos about the cruelty of slaughterhouses, waste of meat production, and the needlessness of eating meat in our day and age.  I've asked her to be patient with me and let me digest the information myself just as I've accepted her personal changes.  And she is respecting that. 

 

One thing we've talked about is how advancements in technology over the ages have diminished many moral dilemmas.  It is easy, for example, to imagine a time when a village had to choose between letting an attacker go free or killing them, the dilemma existing because they had no other way to prevent more attacks.  Now we have prisons and many preventative conditions in modern society, so we don't have to make that choice as often. 

 

So, with meat, there really is no nutritional reason to eat it if we have access to a modern supermarket.  As long as we fill up on unprocessed plant foods to meet caloric requirements, we will exceed the amount of required 12 amino acids for our health.  So, under typical modern conditions, we don't need meat to survive. 

 

I'm not vegetarian yet, but I am trying to provide a diet for myself and family that isn't based so much on meat.  I've noticed a change in my health and stamina.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Meadowchik...

Eating meat or not eating meat is a topic with diverse opinions, studies, etc etc...

For myself, I don't think a strict vegan diet is optimal... but certainly agree that one could limit meat intake considerably from the usual everyday consumption for better health.  I try to eat more fish... here in the Pacific Northwest we have wonderful fish markets with fresh caught cod and salmon.   In fact, just up the road from me is Siletz Bay, and at various times we can go clamming at low tide... and the Siletz River is wonderful for catching beautiful salmon. 

I try to follow a vegetarian style diet but with the fish a couple times a week.  Red meat occasionally.  My favorite special meal is a green salad followed by a medium rare T-Bone or Prime Rib, baked potato, and veggies such as asparagus or broccoli spears, followed by a decadant dessert involving chocolate.  But everyday is semi-vegetarian...  I'm 75, and my morning prayers always express my gratitude that I feel so well... no real aches or pains except from natural aging... so far so good intellectually...

 

GG

[Calm]

"So, with meat, there really is no nutritional reason to eat it if we have access to a modern supermarket"

I have to disagree due to personal experience. When I was younger I was able to be a vegetarian, but trying it again after my health issues were in full force left me in a very weakened state. Adding fish was all that was necessary to change that. It wasn't a matter of not doing it the right way either. I did thorough research on how to get all needed nutrients from plant food and dairy.

Having said that, meat consumption from what I've seen in the US and other countries with heavy European influence could be cut way back on the amount of meat with little negative consequences.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

"So, with meat, there really is no nutritional reason to eat it if we have access to a modern supermarket"

I have to disagree due to personal experience. When I was younger I was able to be a vegetarian, but trying it again after my health issues were in full force left me in a very weakened state. Adding fish was all that was necessary to change that. It wasn't a matter of not doing it the right way either. I did thorough research on how to get all needed nutrients from plant food and dairy.

Having said that, meat consumption from what I've seen in the US and other countries with heavy European influence could be cut way back on the amount of meat with little negative consequences.

Okay, I'll take that into consideration, but without broader evidence and specific reasoning I am admittedly skeptical.

Logically, if the 12 amino acids can be obtained in abundance in whole plant foods, it seems hard to understand the necessity of meat as a supplement to them, as long as you're getting enough calories. Anyways, that point of mine is really about less meat, not necessarily no meat. Caetainly, we in the West live with a great deal of excess.

My dad tried to live on nuts and berries as a teen on a health kick. He was not doing it right.