May 9 2012: I do not see the double standard you are describing. You will need to point out any assumptions that I have made that are not logically correct. I have pointed out assumptions, and interpretations of observations, that do not make sense.
I suspect you are misinterpreting the concept that this topic describes. It does not state that these beliefs do exist, however, the belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" does have these 2 characteristics. It does not state that these beliefs will always exist, or must always exist. It makes no predictions of the future.
Notice that the statement "a belief with these 2 characteristics will overpopulate the planet" does not predict the future. Similarly, "If I point this loaded gun at this child's head, and pull the trigger, the child will die" does not predict whether the gun will be fired, but the statement is totally accurate. The statement tells us what we must not do.
May 9 2012: If an astronomer used the projection technique from the perspective that the Earth is the center of all orbits to predict where stars and planets will be, they would be totally capable of positioning a 100x telescope to track anything in the sky for the next several hours. They would be useless for anything more significant, like for example putting a person on the moon, or finding large objects on a collision course with Earth.
Demographers are in an analogous situation. Their failure to comprehend the concept I describe here, has led to the conclusion that we only need to improve women's education and rights, and ensure access to birth control. The conclusion is that if we do that, the total fertility rate will come down and we will not suffer deaths due to over breeding (listen to the 2 TED talks referenced above). I totally agree that we need to do these things. The logic shown in this topic dictates that those actions are not sufficient to ensure we end deaths due to over breeding.
In order to end deaths due to over breeding we must all comprehend that a belief with these characteristics is morally wrong, because that is the only way to ensure a belief with these characteristics cannot happen.
It seems you missed this concept: "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is a belief that has these two conditions and nearly 100% of humans have this belief. I agree that this is a strange opaque theory, but only because you and many others are actively refusing to comprehend it. It is not about 1% believers, it is about 99.99999% of believers. 1% was simply an example number.
May 9 2012: Re. #1, this is not specific so I cannot respond.
Re. #2, by projecting this hypothetical forward we learn what we must not do. Humans must not have a belief with these characteristics. We also learn that a projection of future birth rates that does not factor in this concept is mathematically wrong. The last paragraph I wrote in the topic could be interpreted as a demand that demographers look through some crystal ball. I intended it to say that if demographers want to predict future birth rates they must deal with this concept.
Re #3. The belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is nearly universal. It certainly satisfies the second condition; it is passed along to the next generation flawlessly. The set of humans that have this belief have never averaged less than 2, thus this belief satisfies both conditions. In short "no way supported by observation" is a bad observation. Before we observe data we must first observe logic.
May 7 2012: If I watch stars moving in the night, I can spot a trend and make a projection. The planet moves n degrees in m minutes. I can project the position of the stars and planets using this technique. The accuracy depends on the goal. If you want to use the stars for navigation, it stinks. If you want to know where to look for Jupiter in a few hours, it is fine. You can improve the projection by fine-tuning based on the new data and trends. Almost everyone will ignore the point about the required accuracy and tell you that this technique is junk. The logic of this topic shows us that the projection techniques demographers use for predicting birth rates, is junk.
As evidenced by the following points, you've shown that at least for you, the demographic transition is a belief.
1) You demonstrated, by using the concept I showed above, that the demographic transition theory cannot predict birth rates in 2200. Yet, you do not conclude it is junk.
2) Stopping at the year 2200 and using 99% is not proof there is no problem. It illustrates nothing. The correct logic to project this to forever, and recognize that a belief with these two characteristics is morally wrong. (note: that "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is a belief that has these two conditions and it has near 0% non-believers).
3) You assumed that we will have plenty of technologies to cope with 7 billion in 2200. This is not a logical assumption. Humans have discovered wind, water, coal, oil, uranium through history as cheaper and cheaper sources of energy. Most people make the mistake of projecting this sequence into the future. This is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic projection. Each time we discover an energy source, like say oil, there is one less energy source to discover. I am not saying that we will not be able to cope with 7 billion, but I certainly will not assume it. Oil runs out.
Using the projection technique so badly is justifying a belief. This is not science.
May 2 2012: Maybe there are no comments because this topic seems too boring.
Maybe nobody that read it recognized that humans are overpopulated on the planet according to the definition on Wikipedia. We are consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. Oil is not necessary for human survival, but it is necessary to keep 7 billion humans alive at one time on this planet, and oil will become scarce. Oil, coal, uranium, and a host of other resources are exactly like the cans of food on the boat. If we do not consume them faster than they renew, billions will die.
Apr 30 2012: In this context, a believer is someone who has a belief that has the 2 characteristics described above. The particular belief does not matter, as long as it has those 2 characteristics we humans have a problem.
For example, consider the belief "It is OK to have as many children as I want". If people that have this belief average more than 2 children, and pass this belief along to the next generation to an average of more than 2 children, then humans will suffer overpopulation.
I assume it was not lost on this audience, and you, that you and almost everyone else on this planet believes "it is OK to have as many children as I want". Clearly it is passed along to every child. It does not matter if the belief is passed along by direct teaching, or passively like this one has been. This means that it has the 2nd characteristic. It also has the 1st characteristic too, because humans have always averaged more than 2.
Demographers will point out that the birth rate is coming down, which is to say that they belief that this particular belief will not have the first characteristic someday. Unfortunately, they do not have proof that this will happen. They have a correlation that suggests it might happen. Even if the belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" does indeed manage to lose the first characteristic someday, nothing stops a different belief from having those 2 characteristics.
I agree that Melinda Gates brought up some very good issues. Access to birth control is certainly a requirement, but this logic points out that access is not sufficient.
Notice that your own logic is the same as demographers. You pointed out how you had a lot (in the past) and your children will not (the future), but there is no guarantee commensurate with the potential harm. You also used "large" instead of "greater than 2". 2 is a magic number in this topic. It cannot be replaced with "large" and "small". Demographer make both of these mistakes.
Apr 28 2012: I certainly agree that as the number of believers grows, it gets harder and harder to stop it. I am hoping to find people that comprehend that the only solution to prevent these beliefs is universal knowledge that a belief with these characteristics is morally wrong.
However, note that in your writing you do not seem to use the same definition of believer that I defined above. Yours use of the word "believer" seems to cast a wider net. I want to make it clear that I do not intend to agree with that. I am sticking to the definition I provided and will not include smart/stupid, this religion or that religion.
Apr 27 2012: I think I see your initial confusion. It seems you get it now.
Generally I think of these beliefs as having a blatant "god wants you to have more children" message in it, however, ultimately the message does not matter. If the effect of the message results in those two conditions, then this belief will overpopulate the planet. I agree that people with no beliefs in the birth related area could average more and do a better job of overpopulating.
Demographers have concluded that we are not going to overpopulate the planet. When education, wealth, and women's rights exist, they see that birth rates drop. They take that correlation and conclude there is a mechanism that causes this drop. Their solution for high birth rates is to ensure we all have a good education and wealth and can freely choose how many children we want. (see the two TED talks).
If I stated that the demographic transition theory is bogus because it is only a correlation, thus nothing ensures we will average less than two, demographers would point me to their pile of data that "proves" we do average less than two when their their variables are present. I won't make a dent in their thinking. This topic's logic shows where their logic is flawed, their extrapolation techniques are bogus, and directs them to change their data collection and data interpretation techniques.
But, more importantly, I see no way to prove that a belief with these conditions cannot exist. I also see no great way to hunt down all those that have these beliefs and track their growth. If you think about how to prevent these beliefs, I am hoping you and everyone else that comes in contact with it, will conclude that the only way to prevent these beliefs, is with universal understanding that beliefs like that are immoral.
I need noted experts to state that they agree with that last sentence.
Apr 27 2012: I don't follow your hypothetical example complaint. Please be specific.
I thought that "Demographers use extrapolation techniques to predict future birth rates, but the logic dictates that they must find groups that are averaging the most children, and monitor their growth." is a clear-cut example. I have not been able to find any articles that state that some group has a belief with the two characteristics described above, or an article that proves it cannot exist.
Hans Rosling's TED Talk referenced above, shows the audience how birth rates have come down as wealth has risen. This theory, the demographic transition theory, depends on extrapolation and totally ignores the possibility that this topic brings up.
This concept is simply absent in demography. That makes their conclusions dead wrong.
I would be thrilled to find a demographer that comprehends this concept. Please introduce me to them.
TEDCred score: +0.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
I suspect you are misinterpreting the concept that this topic describes. It does not state that these beliefs do exist, however, the belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" does have these 2 characteristics. It does not state that these beliefs will always exist, or must always exist. It makes no predictions of the future.
Notice that the statement "a belief with these 2 characteristics will overpopulate the planet" does not predict the future. Similarly, "If I point this loaded gun at this child's head, and pull the trigger, the child will die" does not predict whether the gun will be fired, but the statement is totally accurate. The statement tells us what we must not do.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
Demographers are in an analogous situation. Their failure to comprehend the concept I describe here, has led to the conclusion that we only need to improve women's education and rights, and ensure access to birth control. The conclusion is that if we do that, the total fertility rate will come down and we will not suffer deaths due to over breeding (listen to the 2 TED talks referenced above). I totally agree that we need to do these things. The logic shown in this topic dictates that those actions are not sufficient to ensure we end deaths due to over breeding.
In order to end deaths due to over breeding we must all comprehend that a belief with these characteristics is morally wrong, because that is the only way to ensure a belief with these characteristics cannot happen.
It seems you missed this concept: "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is a belief that has these two conditions and nearly 100% of humans have this belief. I agree that this is a strange opaque theory, but only because you and many others are actively refusing to comprehend it. It is not about 1% believers, it is about 99.99999% of believers. 1% was simply an example number.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
Re. #2, by projecting this hypothetical forward we learn what we must not do. Humans must not have a belief with these characteristics. We also learn that a projection of future birth rates that does not factor in this concept is mathematically wrong. The last paragraph I wrote in the topic could be interpreted as a demand that demographers look through some crystal ball. I intended it to say that if demographers want to predict future birth rates they must deal with this concept.
Re #3. The belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is nearly universal. It certainly satisfies the second condition; it is passed along to the next generation flawlessly. The set of humans that have this belief have never averaged less than 2, thus this belief satisfies both conditions. In short "no way supported by observation" is a bad observation. Before we observe data we must first observe logic.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
As evidenced by the following points, you've shown that at least for you, the demographic transition is a belief.
1) You demonstrated, by using the concept I showed above, that the demographic transition theory cannot predict birth rates in 2200. Yet, you do not conclude it is junk.
2) Stopping at the year 2200 and using 99% is not proof there is no problem. It illustrates nothing. The correct logic to project this to forever, and recognize that a belief with these two characteristics is morally wrong. (note: that "I have the right to have as many children as I want" is a belief that has these two conditions and it has near 0% non-believers).
3) You assumed that we will have plenty of technologies to cope with 7 billion in 2200. This is not a logical assumption. Humans have discovered wind, water, coal, oil, uranium through history as cheaper and cheaper sources of energy. Most people make the mistake of projecting this sequence into the future. This is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic projection. Each time we discover an energy source, like say oil, there is one less energy source to discover. I am not saying that we will not be able to cope with 7 billion, but I certainly will not assume it. Oil runs out.
Using the projection technique so badly is justifying a belief. This is not science.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
I agree that everyone needs to understand it is wrong to average more than 2 children.
Just to be clear, "everyone" is the same set of humans that understands murder is wrong.
A comment on Conversation: We need much better definitions for a few population concepts.
Maybe nobody that read it recognized that humans are overpopulated on the planet according to the definition on Wikipedia. We are consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. Oil is not necessary for human survival, but it is necessary to keep 7 billion humans alive at one time on this planet, and oil will become scarce. Oil, coal, uranium, and a host of other resources are exactly like the cans of food on the boat. If we do not consume them faster than they renew, billions will die.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
For example, consider the belief "It is OK to have as many children as I want". If people that have this belief average more than 2 children, and pass this belief along to the next generation to an average of more than 2 children, then humans will suffer overpopulation.
I assume it was not lost on this audience, and you, that you and almost everyone else on this planet believes "it is OK to have as many children as I want". Clearly it is passed along to every child. It does not matter if the belief is passed along by direct teaching, or passively like this one has been. This means that it has the 2nd characteristic. It also has the 1st characteristic too, because humans have always averaged more than 2.
Demographers will point out that the birth rate is coming down, which is to say that they belief that this particular belief will not have the first characteristic someday. Unfortunately, they do not have proof that this will happen. They have a correlation that suggests it might happen. Even if the belief "I have the right to have as many children as I want" does indeed manage to lose the first characteristic someday, nothing stops a different belief from having those 2 characteristics.
I agree that Melinda Gates brought up some very good issues. Access to birth control is certainly a requirement, but this logic points out that access is not sufficient.
Notice that your own logic is the same as demographers. You pointed out how you had a lot (in the past) and your children will not (the future), but there is no guarantee commensurate with the potential harm. You also used "large" instead of "greater than 2". 2 is a magic number in this topic. It cannot be replaced with "large" and "small". Demographer make both of these mistakes.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
However, note that in your writing you do not seem to use the same definition of believer that I defined above. Yours use of the word "believer" seems to cast a wider net. I want to make it clear that I do not intend to agree with that. I am sticking to the definition I provided and will not include smart/stupid, this religion or that religion.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
Generally I think of these beliefs as having a blatant "god wants you to have more children" message in it, however, ultimately the message does not matter. If the effect of the message results in those two conditions, then this belief will overpopulate the planet. I agree that people with no beliefs in the birth related area could average more and do a better job of overpopulating.
Demographers have concluded that we are not going to overpopulate the planet. When education, wealth, and women's rights exist, they see that birth rates drop. They take that correlation and conclude there is a mechanism that causes this drop. Their solution for high birth rates is to ensure we all have a good education and wealth and can freely choose how many children we want. (see the two TED talks).
If I stated that the demographic transition theory is bogus because it is only a correlation, thus nothing ensures we will average less than two, demographers would point me to their pile of data that "proves" we do average less than two when their their variables are present. I won't make a dent in their thinking. This topic's logic shows where their logic is flawed, their extrapolation techniques are bogus, and directs them to change their data collection and data interpretation techniques.
But, more importantly, I see no way to prove that a belief with these conditions cannot exist. I also see no great way to hunt down all those that have these beliefs and track their growth. If you think about how to prevent these beliefs, I am hoping you and everyone else that comes in contact with it, will conclude that the only way to prevent these beliefs, is with universal understanding that beliefs like that are immoral.
I need noted experts to state that they agree with that last sentence.
A reply on Conversation: The conventional wisdom of demographers is fundamentally flawed.
I thought that "Demographers use extrapolation techniques to predict future birth rates, but the logic dictates that they must find groups that are averaging the most children, and monitor their growth." is a clear-cut example. I have not been able to find any articles that state that some group has a belief with the two characteristics described above, or an article that proves it cannot exist.
Hans Rosling's TED Talk referenced above, shows the audience how birth rates have come down as wealth has risen. This theory, the demographic transition theory, depends on extrapolation and totally ignores the possibility that this topic brings up.
This concept is simply absent in demography. That makes their conclusions dead wrong.
I would be thrilled to find a demographer that comprehends this concept. Please introduce me to them.