Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > General Science News

General Science News Got an idea, article or video you want to share on Science, Philosophy or Evolution?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 1st September 2016, 09:40 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
let us say each female of age to reproduce has a lifetime birthrate of 4. Thats a doubling of population per lifetime. three generations can happen within a lifetime. so the doubling doesn't have to wait for a lifetime. three doublings and you have an increase of 800%. its ablut 3.2 generations i think for a tenfold increase

That's each and every single female, Wadaye, under the assumption that all the ones too young or too old to breed were the ones who got killed.

You must have read the clarity I brought to this point?

There's the fact that the remaining population is dispersed, so how do they find each other?

There's the fact that medicine would quickly cease to exist as we know it.

There's the fact that food wouldn't be distributed.

There's the fact that 2 people aren't automatically desiring to copulate with each other.

Even today, over 6000 babies die an hour, and while there are 19 births per 1000, there are 8 deaths in childbirth per 1000.

I'm sorry, but even with spherical cows in a vacuum, the notion you first asserted is literally outrageous.

In reality, it would take centuries and it assuredly wouldn't be guaranteed - any disaster that happens today and takes out a fraction of a percent of the population of a country - in this scenario, it takes out a percent of the entire human population.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 1st September 2016, 09:41 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
ps we are accustomed to thinking of the west where a large portion of the population is beyond breeding age. Much of the world is not like that.
Every part of the world has people too old and people too young to breed.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 1st September 2016, 09:48 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Even in the poorest country on Earth - the worst place to live qualitatively and quantitatively, where the neo-natal death rate is highest, where the expected adult longevity is lowest at 54, even there in Malawi 2.7% + of the population is over 65.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/...tatistics.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4325343/

Malawi National Statistics Office, author. Population Projections. 2010. Dec 21, [March 22, 2012]. http://www.nso.malawi.net.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 1st September 2016, 10:02 PM
wadaye wadaye is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,570
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

ST you seem to always take things to extremes. I didn't suggest that there are no old people in Malawi. Its just that in countries like Uganda for example half of the population is under 15. It's no bar to population growth that much of the population is below breeding age. That doesn't last long.

Not too long ago it was common for women to have 8 to 12 children per lifetime, or die in the process, even in the west. There are significant parts of the world where it is common for a man to have 17 or so children with two or three wives. While the population growth rate depends on women's fertility with on average say 2.5 wives that is still an average of around 6 children each, resulting in a tripling of population.
So yes, there is a self imposed restraint on birth rates in modern industrial society.With With the improvements in prenatal and postnatal care childbirth is much safer and if people wish to increase their fertility its very easy.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 1st September 2016, 10:17 PM
wadaye wadaye is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,570
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
...

Even today, over 6000 babies die an hour, and while there are 19 births per 1000, there are 8 deaths in childbirth per 1000.

....
You've mixed up a lot of statistics here.
Lets take the 6000 babies die per hour claim. That's a claim that 144000 babies die per day, or about 50 million per year.
I haven't heard that claim anywhere before. It would be extraordinary if that were the case. Fortunately it is not. The world health organisation indicates that the infant death rates (i.e. between age 0-5 in total) for the poorest 20% of the population is about 7% in Africa and for wealthy industrial nations the death rates hovers around 1% (with death rates twice as high for the poor as the rich).
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/..._mortality/en/

[Edit correction I said it infant death rates means between 0-5 however the graph is talking about deaths per live births so it is entirely unclear what population range it is talking about, unfortunately
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/...ality_text/en/
)
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/...ality_text/en/

Quote:
and while there are 19 births per 1000, there are 8 deaths in childbirth per 1000.
That's mixing apples and oranges. "19 births per 1000" you are talking about births per year per population.
"8 deaths in childbirth per 1000" you are talking about deaths (maternal or child?) per population of pregnant women.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

Last edited by wadaye; 1st September 2016 at 10:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 1st September 2016, 11:14 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
ST you seem to always take things to extremes.
Extremely towards reality, perhaps.

But your claim regarding how humanity could replace 90% of its population in a couple of generations, regardless of whether I am extreme, deranged, or completely off the tracks, is still bizarre and provably so.

What I did was take an extreme example - the best that could be used to support your position, where even that doesn't conform to what you had claimed.


Quote:
wadaye said View Post
I didn't suggest that there are no old people in Malawi.
I didn't suggest you did. What I replied to what the latest strange claim that there are parts of the world where there isn't a large population of those outside of breeding age. Thus I used Malawi, the poorest country on the planet, to show that was false.


Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Its just that in countries like Uganda for example half of the population is under 15. It's no bar to population growth that much of the population is below breeding age. That doesn't last long.
It's also irrelevant when the mortality rates in Uganda are exceptionally high and that's with modern medicine, modern transportation, modern power generation etc.

Take away 90% of their society, and see how quickly it goes south - recall, that the 90% would also include 90% of their farmers, 90% of their food deliverers, 90% of all the integral members of their society would disappear, so the notion that they'd simply rebreed up to previous numbers seems abstracted from reality.



Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Not too long ago it was common for women to have 8 to 12 children per lifetime, or die in the process, even in the west.
And at the same time, it was common for some of them to die in childbirth, some of them to die as infants, some to die before they reached adulthood. That same time wasn't noted for swiftly increasing population, because people died all the time.


Quote:
wadaye said View Post
There are significant parts of the world where it is common for a man to have 17 or so children with two or three wives. While the population growth rate depends on women's fertility with on average say 2.5 wives that is still an average of around 6 children each, resulting in a tripling of population.
And how many of them die before they're old, Wadaye? And where is this 'significant' part of the world, and why aren't the populations of these significant parts of the world higher than other countries where this doesn't happen?


Quote:
wadaye said View Post
So yes, there is a self imposed restraint on birth rates in modern industrial society.
No, the relationship is between offspring surviving and number of births. What actually happens is that in poor countries with terrible healthcare and poverty, people have lots of babies and the chances are that many of them will die*. Whereas, in developed, educated, and well off countries, people have less children but can reasonably expect that those kids will survive.

* note that I didn't say 'because', rather parents in these impoverished scenarios consider children to be wealth

So, in your 90% die-off scenario, the remaining people may well have more babies, but those babies are going to die much more frequently due to the lack of modern medicine thanks to the dire shortage of doctors, chemists and medical manufacturies, and due to the poor nutrition of a world which has lost its food production and trading network.

Our modern society is hinged on the numbers of producers around the world and the trade networks which bring it to its consumers. A world which has lost 90% of everything ends up being a world in which everyone is in subsistence mode, trying to gather enough food for themselves and their families just to live.


Quote:
wadaye said View Post
With With the improvements in prenatal and postnatal care childbirth is much safer and if people wish to increase their fertility its very easy.
What improvements in pre-natal care are there in a world where 90% of doctors, nurses, electrical producers, chemical manufacturers, trade networks and all the other integral parts of our modern society have disappeared?

You're not following through with your claim. If 90% of the human population of the world disappeared, we'd be back to subsistence farming, and there'd surely be none of the expectations you have in this period because there simply would not be enough people doing the jobs they currently do. Those who remained would themselves need to grow their own food.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 2nd September 2016, 07:37 AM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,164
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

With such a massive sudden depopulation event, there would be a massive loss of knowledge as well.


Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
Like Spearthrower liked this post
  #28  
Old 2nd September 2016, 08:35 AM
wadaye wadaye is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,570
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
With such a massive sudden depopulation event, there would be a massive loss of knowledge as well.


Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
Much modern knowledge is not necessary for survival and reproduction.
Consider for example the law. It certainly helps to not go around burning people at the stake but those kind of primitive systems worked, like hangings in England, or Japanese soldiers blooding themselves in Nanking, as a glue to bind society together in a perverse way.

Actually human societies have gone through and survived such traumas before. Consider Aboriginal societies which underwent similar or worse genocides than 90%, and that was in many cases after being first exposed to the ravages of small pox years or decades before.
Nonetheless their societies survived in many instances.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 2nd September 2016, 09:02 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Much modern knowledge is not necessary for survival and reproduction.
Medical knowledge, agricultural knowledge, oil extraction knowledge, manufacturing knowledge, chemistry, nuclear power plant knowledge.... basically, all the knowledge that props up our modern society would be lost.

Of course I am not saying that humans would necessarily go extinct if 90% of the population died out, but I expect what would actually happen is that a further 90% of that population would also die to the ravages of being thrust back into nature without the requisite skills.

We'd be back to the population level the anti-progress posse have wet-dreams about. We'd be back at hunter-gatherer levels, and while we would undoubtedly rise again because so much infrastructure would remain in place, I think it would take many, many generations to return to our current population level of 7 billion +, in the order of dozens, if not over a hundred. It certainly wouldn't happen in the lifetimes of the children who survived the first great dying.



Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Consider Aboriginal societies which underwent similar or worse genocides than 90%, and that was in many cases after being first exposed to the ravages of small pox years or decades before.
Nonetheless their societies survived in many instances.
Firstly, aborigines who underwent the ravages of contact with the colonists weren't living a technological lifestyle - they had shared knowledge on how to deal with their immediate environmental pressures, so this doesn't offer any form of useful model with regards to the above discussion as humans living in modern urban environments simply lack any relevant knowledge to survive without society.

Secondly, there was an estimated 750,000 aborigines at the time of colonisation, but today there's only 450,000 odd - that's 230-ish years. or about 8 generations and still they haven't recovered their number. They probably never will because that lifestyle is largely cut off from them, so their numbers won't increase as they'll slowly be subsumed by inter-marriage. The 2006 census evidences this where it noted that 55% of aboriginals had inter-married.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 2nd September 2016 at 09:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 2nd September 2016, 12:17 PM
Svadifari's Avatar
Svadifari Svadifari is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 415
Default Re: The Anthrpocene Epoch

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
.........We'd be back at hunter-gatherer levels, and while we would undoubtedly rise again because so much infrastructure would remain in place, I think it would take many, many generations to return to our current population level of 7 billion +......
I'm wondering, how much infrastructure would actually be useful?
A lot of infrastructure are in cities, which will probably be the worst places to try and survive once the leftovers have been looted. Highly rural areas will be best suited for survival.
I think 'turf wars' in metro area will kill off a lot of survivors. Sudan will probably be a safer place to live than London.
__________________
Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.