Human carrying capacity

[Skeptic]

The current world population is approximately 6.6 billion people.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Scientists have estimated that by 2050 the population will be around 9 Billion people.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... lation&Cr1

If there are currently people starving and living in poverty due to lack of resources is it really ethical to save them and artificially boost the populations of those regions. If they cannot survive currently, providing a condition in which they can survive and reproduce thus making the regional population higher should only compound the original problem. Thus making the situation worse for the next generation and creating a need for humanitarian assistance in perpetuity.

A number of the humanitarian groups are religious groups. They believe that they are helping these people but the reality is that they are only making it worse for the future of the region. Clearly the best solution would be to move them to refugee camps away from resource depleted zones but that isn't what is happening.

The question for open debate: Is it ethical to provide humanitarian assistance when doing so can only cause more harm than good down the road?

Why save them? If their geographic region cannot support them would it not be more ecologically/economically sound to let nature take it's course?

[McCulloch]

Economically prosperous people tend not to overbreed.

[byofrcs]

Economically prosperous people tend not to overbreed.

Economically prosperous nations also tend to not be corrupt (ref: 2007 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (PDF) )

Economically prosperous nations also tend to have high organic atheism where there is good societal health (ref: Phil Zuckerman: Is Faith Good for Us? )

[GrumpyMrGruff]

The question for open debate: Is it ethical to provide humanitarian assistance when doing so can only cause more harm than good down the road?

This outcome of providing humanitarian aid depends on the type of aid being provided. Your post seems to equate aid with airdropping crates of food onto starving populations and providing no further support. Aid may also come in the form of education on sustainable farming/production practices and birth control methods. These might more directly address the issues of resource utilization and population growth described in your post.

Why save them? If their geographic region cannot support them would it not be more ecologically/economically sound to let nature take it's course?

It's worth noting that beyond a certain population size, few regions can completely support a population. There are net food importing and exporting countries and importing/exporting regions in those countries. The "trick" to sustainability among the inporters is finding something useful (products or services) which can be traded for food. That's where training comes into the picture.

Also, there's often a tradeoff between purely utilitarian ethical reasoning and assumptions of inherent rights of human beings. Reasoning that a healthy ecosphere benefits humanity and that we should therefore reduce the human population since it will improve the ecosphere is a straightforward utilitarian argument. However, I think many people would shy away from committing mass murder in the name of environmental health. (Barring a few people in the Sierra Club, maybe. )

The unequal application of ethics to "in-group" versus "out-group" individuals often comes up in evo/ethical debates on this forum. In-group, it is considered immoral - and sometimes illegal - for a professional such as a doctor to ignore an injured person who they can help. There is a certain amount of altruism expected among group members. If we wish to apply our in-group ethics to all people (implied in the concept of natural rights), we need to ask if large entities (governments, corporations, international aid groups) which are capable of providing aid are obligated to help disadvantaged populations when they can. This could mean relocation (as you suggested) or training/aid.

The way your question is worded suggests that starving populations have been assigned to an out-group less deserving of aid than an arbitrary in-group (Westernized societies, the wealthy, what have you). Except for the fact that they are not "us," what makes them less deserving of help than homeless individuals receiving government subsidized aid in more developed countries?

[Skeptic]

First of all thank you for the very well thought out response.

Your post seems to equate aid with airdropping crates of food onto starving populations and providing no further support. Aid may also come in the form of education on sustainable farming/production practices and birth control methods.

Not so much just air-dropping as short term commitments. If we go in for a couple months and then pull out it seems to me that in the long run we do more harm than good. I agree that educating them is a good first step but still it would have to be a long term investment of time and money.

It's worth noting that beyond a certain population size, few regions can completely support a population. There are net food importing and exporting countries and importing/exporting regions in those countries. The "trick" to sustainability among the inporters is finding something useful (products or services) which can be traded for food. That's where training comes into the picture.

Typically the places where aid is needed and is sent are in such a way because they have nothing to begin with. Exporting good is not really an option. One of the methods that is currently popular is the idea of eco-tourism. This in my opinion is both good and bad. It serves to gain revenue for the people but they are a people not used to having revenue and often don't know what to do with it. More education I guess. On the other hand it leads to exploitation of some natural event that these tourist would want to see, thus bad for the environment. Certainly not a cure all approach.

However, I think many people would shy away from committing mass murder in the name of environmental health.

I'm certainly not suggesting mass murder. Merely letting nature take it's course. An unhealthy population typically has a growth rate less than 1. resulting in a decreasing population. Sure nobody likes infant mortality, especially starving babies they could have fed by sending aid. That though is the new beginning of the same problem. Another mouth in a place that cannot support it. They will need aid in perpetuity(I like that word) or until the population crashes to a level below what the area can support.

There is a certain amount of altruism expected among group members.

True altruism is rare in nature. Usually ends up being reciprocity or mutualism. [social insects and some species of birds help one another, however both receive indirect benefits from doing so.]

The way your question is worded suggests that starving populations have been assigned to an out-group less deserving of aid than an arbitrary in-group (Westernized societies, the wealthy, what have you). Except for the fact that they are not "us," what makes them less deserving of help than homeless individuals receiving government subsidized aid in more developed countries?

No really I mean all. Our less fortunate were not mentioned in my original post because(just an observation/opinion) we tend to aid them less than foreign (more in the news) people. There is more public praise for the government that is sooo rich it can aid people outside its own country. I think people here in the US or any rich country who find themselves unable to contribute to or keep up with society should meet their natural end. If you cannot acquire the means of your own survival then in nature you die.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Your post seems to equate aid with airdropping crates of food onto starving populations and providing no further support. Aid may also come in the form of education on sustainable farming/production practices and birth control methods.

Not so much just air-dropping as short term commitments. If we go in for a couple months and then pull out it seems to me that in the long run we do more harm than good. I agree that educating them is a good first step but still it would have to be a long term investment of time and money.

I agree that a "mission trip" mentality - where an aid group makes a project of helping a community/population for a fixed amount of time - has little to no long term benefit. Sustained investments of time and money would be required.

It's worth noting that beyond a certain population size, few regions can completely support a population. There are net food importing and exporting countries and importing/exporting regions in those countries. The "trick" to sustainability among the inporters is finding something useful (products or services) which can be traded for food. That's where training comes into the picture.

Typically the places where aid is needed and is sent are in such a way because they have nothing to begin with. Exporting goods is not really an option. One of the methods that is currently popular is the idea of eco-tourism. This in my opinion is both good and bad. It serves to gain revenue for the people but they are a people not used to having revenue and often don't know what to do with it. More education I guess. On the other hand it leads to exploitation of some natural event that these tourist would want to see, thus bad for the environment. Certainly not a cure all approach.

I see what you mean. I'm not well read enough on the various strategies to offer much here.

However, I think many people would shy away from committing mass murder in the name of environmental health.

I'm certainly not suggesting mass murder. Merely letting nature take it's course. An unhealthy population typically has a growth rate less than 1. resulting in a decreasing population. Sure nobody likes infant mortality, especially starving babies they could have fed by sending aid. That though is the new beginning of the same problem. Another mouth in a place that cannot support it. They will need aid in perpetuity(I like that word) or until the population crashes to a level below what the area can support.

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that this was your position; I only wanted to give an example of utilitarianism at odds with human rights. I agree that if any aid is given, it is vital to initiate birth control practices to keep the now amply fed population from increasing. I recognize the difficulty in doing this - sexual taboos, insults to people's virility, the tendency to overproduce to offset the infant mortality you mentioned. Of the changes that would need to be made, this seems the hardest to make stick and the most important.

True altruism is rare in nature. Usually ends up being reciprocity or mutualism. [social insects and some species of birds help one another, however both receive indirect benefits from doing so.]

Understanding where our moral instincts come from is useful, but just because they are natural/evolved does not require us to follow them. These systems evolved to increase the fitness of a less densely populated, minimally technological humanity. What was best for them is not necessarily best for us, and we need to think things out before going with what "just feels right."

I think people here in the US or any rich country who find themselves unable to contribute to or keep up with society should meet their natural end.

Wow. I think that's a little harsh. I'm a fan of reciprocity and "doing unto others". There's always a chance, slim though it may be, that we will be unable to support ourselves at some point in our lives (besides extreme old age, that is). If I'm in that position, I wouldn't want to die. Hence, I "buy into" the group mentality that charity is good. It's easy to observe this behavior at the newspaper stand - customers drop their hard earned money in the change container so that someone without exact change can make a purchase. Granted, there will be parasites who game the system to their advantage - at the newsstand and from welfare. For my sake, should I ever end up dependent on the kindness of strangers, I'm willing to tolerate some parasites.

As far as needy populations go, this kind of dependence again comes down to "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" training. The primary goal of aid should not be the indefinite support of a group, but rather building the self-sufficiency of that group.

[Skeptic]

This has been intellectually stimulating. Thank you.

Wow. I think that's a little harsh. I'm a fan of reciprocity and "doing unto others". There's always a chance, slim though it may be, that we will be unable to support ourselves at some point in our lives (besides extreme old age, that is). If I'm in that position, I wouldn't want to die. Hence, I "buy into" the group mentality that charity is good. It's easy to observe this behavior at the newspaper stand - customers drop their hard earned money in the change container so that someone without exact change can make a purchase. Granted, there will be parasites who game the system to their advantage - at the newsstand and from welfare. For my sake, should I ever end up dependent on the kindness of strangers, I'm willing to tolerate some parasites.

Reciprocity requires a return of some kind at some point. If you take a social approach, and those people do eventually get back on their feet then sure there may be some indirect return via taxes paid or some other indirect charitable deed. From a capitalist approach however there likely never will be a return of services, there may be some gain in reputation or status for the giver, but that would require that they make their acts known and thus would be self serving rather than reciprocity or altruism.

I agree that some charity can be good provided that a dependency isn't created. If people come to rely on charity from others then they become less self sufficient (insufficient). When I feel the urge to be charitable I don't give cash under any circumstances but rather I will go to a restaurant and buy food for somebody. This requires a financial and time donation. So what helps more just money or a gift of food? I think food because you know they can't buy booze or drugs with a cheeseburger.

That brings up another question, on a more domestic front, we have to look at what caused that person to reach their current state. Why are they homeless? Why are they unable to provide for themselves? Typically it is a self caused condition. That is why I am typically not sympathetic. I feel bad for their children as kids have no choice in the matter.

Unfortunately, as you mentioned there are parasites. Those that have more children because they know that more kids equals more handouts. I feel bad for those kids being used as pawns. Again because they have no choice. Society won't let those kids die of starvation. however that may be the wake up call that irresponsible adult needs. Perhaps if they lost a kid they would realize that their actions/inactions affect more than themselves.

I know that if I found myself in such a position that I would do everything in my power to find a way to provide for my family. If I could not then I would accept death. One nice thing about being an Atheist, I'm not afraid of ceasing to exist. I believe in survival of the fittest and if I cannot procure the means of my existence then my time has passed.

As far as needy populations go, this kind of dependence again comes down to "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" training. The primary goal of aid should not be the indefinite support of a group, but rather building the self-sufficiency of that group.

Again, if the area cannot support a population of fishers they will still be hungry. Which brings us back to the OT. We are artificially boosting the human population by providing aid to regions that are not self sufficient. We can do this for a while as there is enough food in the world. Eventually though usable water will become the limiting factor. If we don't have enough to drink we can't use it for crops. If we can't use it for crops we don't have enough to eat. If we don't have enough to eat the population declines and I'm sure the system will start over.[/quote]

[MikeH]

A great book to read on this subject is The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time by Jeffrey Sachs. He is an economist who lays out a pretty solid plan for ending world poverty by the year 2025.

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Sorry for my long absence. Work has been sucking up my time and I've found that when I get home to my computer, I'm not in state of mind conducive to posting. But now, the weekend!

Reciprocity requires a return of some kind at some point. If you take a social approach, and those people do eventually get back on their feet then sure there may be some indirect return via taxes paid or some other indirect charitable deed. From a capitalist approach however there likely never will be a return of services, there may be some gain in reputation or status for the giver, but that would require that they make their acts known and thus would be self serving rather than reciprocity or altruism.

I agree. My use of "reciprocity" was a poor choice of words. I was thinking of something analogous to an insurance program, although the comparison isn't perfect. You pay in (donate, do volunteer work, etc.) against the day that you need a payout (some form of aid) and that payout is available because other people pay into the same fund. Charitable activities won't be as clearly structured as an insurance plans, but that's the utility I see in them. One doesn't necessarily pay in with tangible goods (though he may, for example to food banks). By being charitable and promoting charity, he encourages such behavior and reinforces they safety net available if he ever needs some kind of support. Here, as with an insurance system, there will be parasites. Thee may be strategies to limit the number of people who game the system.

This may reflect a difference of our opinions: I see parasitism as an unwelcome side effect of an otherwise useful system. You seem to view parasites as a significantly more serious problem.

I agree that some charity can be good provided that a dependency isn't created. If people come to rely on charity from others then they become less self sufficient (insufficient). When I feel the urge to be charitable I don't give cash under any circumstances but rather I will go to a restaurant and buy food for somebody. This requires a financial and time donation. So what helps more just money or a gift of food? I think food because you know they can't buy booze or drugs with a cheeseburger.

You'll hear no disagreement from me. Remember that charity need not be limited to helping one person at a time, and that charitable organizations (eg, Habitat for Humanity) don't always give things away.

That brings up another question, on a more domestic front, we have to look at what caused that person to reach their current state. Why are they homeless? Why are they unable to provide for themselves? Typically it is a self caused condition. That is why I am typically not sympathetic. I feel bad for their children as kids have no choice in the matter.

Everyone has heard the horror stories of generation after generation of teen mothers in "welfare families," but a quick look at the wiki statistics pains a more complex picture. Many people are homeless due to failure to complete their educations, yes, but many also have chronic health problems (mental and physical) which make gainful employment difficult if not impossible. I don't know that homelessness and poverty can be summarized as a "self caused condition."

What to do with people who are, for example, mentally ill is another question which might also be explored. Is there potential rehabilitation? Should they be institutionalized or placed in care homes? What criteria should be used in deciding their treatment, if any?

Unfortunately, as you mentioned there are parasites. Those that have more children because they know that more kids equals more handouts. I feel bad for those kids being used as pawns. Again because they have no choice. Society won't let those kids die of starvation. however that may be the wake up call that irresponsible adult needs. Perhaps if they lost a kid they would realize that their actions/inactions affect more than themselves.

Again, I'm a bit taken aback at this. My first reaction when you posed this scenario was Why not enact laws that forcibly remove these children (and the associated benefits) from their irresponsible parents? This isn't a cure-all solution - foster care programs are left to deal with children who are not adopted and adoptive families aren't always ideal, either. However, in this case the children need not be made victim of the circumstances of their birth and at least have the opportunity to live a more productive life than their parents.

I know that if I found myself in such a position that I would do everything in my power to find a way to provide for my family. If I could not then I would accept death. One nice thing about being an Atheist, I'm not afraid of ceasing to exist. I believe in survival of the fittest and if I cannot procure the means of my existence then my time has passed.

While I agree that the lack of a belief in eternal damnation tend to remove some of the anxiety from the concept of death I've noticed that most people (myself included) tend to have a hard-wired fear nonexistence that no amount of intellectual assurances can ease. Maybe this has something to do with the differing opinions I mentioned above?

Again, if the area cannot support a population of fishers they will still be hungry. Which brings us back to the OT. We are artificially boosting the human population by providing aid to regions that are not self sufficient. We can do this for a while as there is enough food in the world. Eventually though usable water will become the limiting factor. If we don't have enough to drink we can't use it for crops. If we can't use it for crops we don't have enough to eat. If we don't have enough to eat the population declines and I'm sure the system will start over.

I don't know that the traditional ecological concept of carrying capacity can be usefully applied to people anymore. You talk about "regions that are not self sufficient" and "artificially boosting the human population." I don't want to read too much into your words, but it sounds like you'd prefer population levels of regions at the local carrying capacity. This seems kind of hypocritical as anyone living in the US (except for citizens of heavily agricultural states) probably experiences a local human population density far above the "natural" carrying capacity of their region.

Supposing for a moment that these indigenous populations we're talking about are capable of trading something (services, eco-tourism, whathaveyou) for food. There is still an effective population limit governed by how fast food is produced and how quickly it can be transported to the population. These logistics bear out whether we're talking about Indiana, Arizona, or Central Africa. You've pointed out one possible outcome, a crash-boom cycle. This might occur if oscillations about the carrying capacity are intense enough to cripple our infrastructure. In that case major crashes seems likely. Otherwise, the population could experience minor oscillations around the "global carrying capacity."

The point I'm trying to make is that we are currently below this global population maximum and we can afford to stabilize the current population. Yes, population growth is bad and we increase our risks by relying on vulnerable infrastructure to distribute our resources. I agree with you there. As I've mentioned before, aid in conjunction with education, especially about birth control, is key to any plan. (Whether this can be done without creating dependencies is a valid point that you raised.)

I, for one, would prefer to live well below any global carrying capacity. I'd much rather live with relative abundance and low conflict than find myself forced to fight for everything. As a species, we have the brains to (more-or-less) control our instinctual desire to breed.

Well, please pardon the typos. I've had a long day in the lab. Again, my apologies for the delay.

[Skeptic]

Excellent reply. My apologies for my delay I haven't been actively monitoring. Been a bit busy with School. I'm sure you can relate. Almost over though I graduate in May.


I don't really think we can consider a global human carrying capacity. As with all other species the population is governed by the resources of their habitat. So the population must be considered at a regional level. You mentioned that we are capable of importing our goods and offered that as a reason why we can boost populations above what the locality can support and I agree that that point makes assessing a regional limit a bit difficult, however not impossible. Especially when the local population doesn't have the means to acquire said goods.

As for our own homeless and transient population, you make a valid point that some are physically and mentally handicapped and that is a situation that usually is not of their own doing. I agree that assistance of some sort should be provided for circumstances beyond their control. They didn't end up out there because of their own poor decisions. Perhaps the domestic solution is to have an investigative bureau to root out the parasites. It could be funded with the money saved by not paying the leeches of society.

Tangent: I think in the long run it isn't really going to matter. As the population of the world increases water is fast becoming our limiting factor. I honestly cannot wait for the day when all of the golf courses go brown and dry. Global climate trends suggest a polar melting is approaching that makes all of that fresh water unusable or very difficult to use, the mountain top glaciers are going too. That will result in less runoff which means less fresh water. It is difficult to make this point in one of the wettest winters in recent years but it will likely happen. I suspect water will sometime in the not too distant future cost more than gasoline.