Safety Rules, Population Growth

[SSScout]

I always encourage Scouts to play the "what if" game:  when packing for a trip,  planning an Eagle project, waking your dog....   Like BP when he was asked, "prepared for what?"  and he responded, "why, for any old thing...."

I recently watched a fascinating documentary film from about 1922 that showed how the Phiilips Company of Holland made light bulbs, radios,  radio vacuum tubes ("Fessenden valves"), loud speakers (Bakelite !), phonographs....   and it struck me, reading thru this thread about safety standards....  One of the reasons OSHA exists is because we procreate so many fewer people .   The fewer people created, the more valuable they are and  the more they need to be protected?   Was  life "cheaper" back then?  Workmen wearing neck ties while the operate machinery, glass blowing without glasses,  no eyeshields  before metal lathes,  bare handed handling of raw materials,  no "hard hats"....  the best I saw was a full body suit ( helmit with faceplate, overalls, air tube trailing behind) in a painting booth.  The women were delegated to "fine" work, threading wire, soldering connections (not to much ventilation apparent), etc. 

War, desease, accidents,,,,

The new car you buy will soon make it VERY difficult to have an accident.  Lane change monitor, front/rear radar, auto braking, auto headlamp lighting,  speed monitoring and reminding,  flat tire pressure alarm,  consciousness (!) recognition.....  

You kind of get the same feeling watching the building of the Grand Coulee Dam,  Boulder Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge and other constructions of the past.  The men (and women!)  had skills and bravery  and accepting of risks beyond what many would accept nowadays. And coal mining.     Watch  October Sky, and   How Green Was My Valley sometime.   When I attended the 2013 NatJam, the camps were lettered (A,B,C, etc. ) and named after "famous" coalmines. The coalmine names didn't catch on, and I wondered why the Labor Merit Badge wasn't represented by the AFL/CIO.... 

And that realization about the "value" of life comes after the Great War,  the Spanish Flu,  World War 2,  and various other conflicts.  Or was it a matter of the LACK of concern of the "Bosses"  involved?  

Enough rambling.  I just got back from a wonderful vacation, and  wouldn't cha know, I start on a free association about safety,  population, Scouts and labor unionization..... 

Pass the pie, please..... 

[mrkstvns]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:45 AM, SSScout said:

....   and it struck me, reading thru this thread about safety standards....  One of the reasons OSHA exists is because we procreate so many fewer people .   The fewer people created, the more valuable they are and  the more they need to be protected?   Was  life "cheaper" back then?   ...

Huh?

Arguably the biggest environmental problem facing humanity is the issue of explosive population growth. Overpopulation has been looming large for many decades (though arguably, Earth has proven more resilient than Thomas Malthus thought when he first raised the alarm about humanity's crush on the planet's life support system way back in 1798).  

I don't know how many humans is too many, and I don't know how scientists or politicians should deal with the questions.  But the fact is that the world population today is about 4 times HIGHER than it was in the 19th century...and the rate of population growth has done nothing but accelerate.

So how on earth do you come up with a bizarre notion of "we procreate so many fewer people"?  

That just makes no sense.

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

Huh?

Arguably the biggest environmental problem facing humanity is the issue of explosive population growth. Overpopulation has been looming large for many decades (though arguably, Earth has proven more resilient than Thomas Malthus thought when he first raised the alarm about humanity's crush on the planet's life support system way back in 1798).  

I don't know how many humans is too many, and I don't know how scientists or politicians should deal with the questions.  But the fact is that the world population today is about 4 times HIGHER than it was in the 19th century...and the rate of population growth has done nothing but accelerate.

So how on earth do you come up with a bizarre notion of "we procreate so many fewer people"?  

That just makes no sense.

Apples and oranges. I don't know if OSHA was created for low population growth in the US, but experts have been expressing for a long time that the birth rate in North America is too low and will have to be balanced. What does that mean exactly, I don't know. But the low birth rate has been a topic for a few years. Now, that discussion isn't the same as the over population fear that is seeping into politics. That is a different thing. Activism, you've got to love it. Or hate it.

Barry

[walk in the woods]

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level

[mrkstvns]

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Apples and oranges. I don't know if OSHA was created for low population growth in the US, but experts have been expressing for a long time that the birth rate in North America is too low and will have to be balanced. What does that mean exactly, I don't know. But the low birth rate has been a topic for a few years. Now, that discussion isn't the same as the over population fear that is seeping into politics. That is a different thing. Activism, you've got to love it. Or hate it.

Yes, and that's true too....from the perspective of sustaining economic growth where issues of resource availability is not considered and the value of a sustained global life support system is not factored in.

The numbers I quoted  simply reflect  the fact that population has been growing globally. 4 times in the past century. 

 

 

[walk in the woods]

5 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Yes, and that's true too....from the perspective of sustaining economic growth where issues of resource availability is not considered and the value of a sustained global life support system is not factored in.

The numbers I quoted  simply reflect  the fact that population has been growing globally. 4 times in the past century. 

 

 

So have crop yields.  In 1924 the soybean harvest averaged 11 bpa, in 2015 it was 48 bpa (https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/croptr16.pdf).  In 2018 in Illinois it was 64 bpa (https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/09/exceptional-2018-corn-and-soybean-yields-and-budgeting-for-2019.html).  That's a 480% increase in soy production in the US alone.  Corn yields have a similar if not so dramatic story as well.  And those crops are being produced by a tiny fraction of the number of people today vs. 1924.  Malthus underestimated human ingenuity when unleashed in free markets.  

[mrkstvns]

1 minute ago, walk in the woods said:

So have crop yields.  ...

Yep, you're right!   Crop yields have increased.

Amazing what fertilizers, insecticides, genetic modification, and over irrigation can do....

But do you honestly think such things are sustainable forever?  For that matter, is runaway population growth sustainable forever?   

Our generation has certainly created some big problems to leave to our kids and grandchildren, haven't we...

[walk in the woods]

5 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

Yep, you're right!   Crop yields have increased.

Amazing what fertilizers, insecticides, genetic modification, and over irrigation can do....

But do you honestly think such things are sustainable forever?  For that matter, is runaway population growth sustainable forever?   

Our generation has certainly created some big problems to leave to our kids and grandchildren, haven't we...

Population growth rates have been slowing for decades: https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=5&secNum=4

[mrkstvns]

26 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Population growth rates have been slowing for decades: https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=5&secNum=4

In some places (rich countries) more than others (the places with the most people).

But you know, even if you reduce acceleration on your speeding car so you hit the brick wall at 130mph instead of 132mph, you're still going to die.

Kind of the same thing with overpopulation.  A drastic decrease might alter the equations, but slower increases won't.

[Eagledad]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE !

Barry

[ianwilkins]

Saw an interesting documentary by an expert in the field of population, Hans Rosling, an very entertaining and informative presenter he was too. If memory serves, as countries "sort themselves out", as women get educated, as health outcomes improve, the birth rate drops dramatically. We are not being replaced by more people in the next generation. There's a "bulge" of people living longer, while in some places more are born than die. As this sorts itself out, population will level off. Basically. But with more examples and said in a much more interesting way. We'll still have to manage 10-11 billion people on the planet though.

Of course, when a few generations down the line we're all gender neutral and the estrogen in the water has turned all the men infertile, and we're all living in some Handmaid's Tale dystopia, that should sort population levels out. Well, for those that stay on earth anyway. (dons tin foil hat to stop the government mind control waves)

[mrkstvns]

4 hours ago, ianwilkins said:

Saw an interesting documentary by an expert in the field of population, Hans Rosling, an very entertaining and informative presenter he was too. If memory serves, as countries "sort themselves out", as women get educated, as health outcomes improve, the birth rate drops dramatically. We are not being replaced by more people in the next generation. There's a "bulge" of people living longer, while in some places more are born than die. As this sorts itself out, population will level off. Basically. But with more examples and said in a much more interesting way. We'll still have to manage 10-11 billion people on the planet though.

Yes, this is what's been happening over the last couple decades.  The problem for politicians is that as population growth slows, so does the economy. You just don't need as many factories, stores, services etc. if your population isn't going to create more demand. Declining birth rates is great for the planet....not so great for the bean counters...

[walk in the woods]

1 hour ago, mrkstvns said:

Yes, this is what's been happening over the last couple decades.  The problem for politicians is that as population growth slows, so does the economy. You just don't need as many factories, stores, services etc. if your population isn't going to create more demand. Declining birth rates is great for the planet....not so great for the bean counters...

Even as population declines, as long as areas of the world are still being lifted out of poverty by the free market, there will be new demand for products.  In addition, as new and ever more innovative products are created, demand will be stimulated.  The future's so bright I have to wear shades!  😎  https://www.humanprogress.org/

[SSScout]

Our Meeting's Graveyard dates back to 1754.  The earliest graves have no stones, as the early Friends considered headstones with names and dates as "vain displays".  But the simple markers from about 1820,  are illuminating.  One of our members did a study of the age at death vs the chronological date.  The  results, if not definitive, were thought provoking.  Before the 20th century, children who died before the age of 5, were not uncommon. often in one family, more than one child would die in a notable succession.  Folks back then had big families, to help work the farm, to make sure there would be someone to "carry on" the name.  My father had 3 brothers and 2 sisters, born into the era before the Great War, or just after.  The GY study implied that the children who died before 1900,  died from causes now easily prevented in the US of A,  Diptheria, cholera, measles, pneumonia,  all easily cured or prevented now.  Back then…? After about 1920, there were far fewer, that is to say, a handful, recorded child deaths in our graveyard.  Why the drop in incidence?  Because of the discovery of preventive vaccines, better nutrition,  understanding of sanitation, it is all cumulative. 

Why have 8, 10, 12 children.  One or two will do now, that we have some assurance they will grow to adulthood.  If we choose (now we can choose) to have children. 

56 million die because of WW2 before their natural time, many before they could have the "privilege" of children.  Does the world population still increase geometrically?  Perhaps the Third (fourth? ) world does not yet have the medical and health advantages of  the United States or the United Europe. 

Such is the need for OSHA.   But then, we will find new ways to shorten a human life if the more accidental and natural ways do not suffice (Dorian?).    

I have no doubt about the survival of our species.  It just may not be contributed to so much by America..... 

Best we make Good Scouts from the girls and boys at hand. 

 

FYI:  Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.  15^th Edition. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA  p 113

Edited September 12, 2019 by SSScout