Rather than dwelling on sadness, maybe we should ask if there isn't something we can do, as a group, to make that day arrive sooner. What would it take to cure, or at least treat, cancer(s)?
The WHO produces a report on causes of death wordwide[0]. Heart disease and stroke are the biggest killers, but these are, like cancer, really quite complex. Diarrhoeal diseases and respiratory infections kill a ridiculous number of people, but these are largely solved problems in the western world. Organisations like the Gates Foundation are doing great work exporting what we know about these diseases to the developing world, but governments do a pitiful amount. A number of chronic lifestyle diseases are rising: lung/throat cancer (due to smoking) and diabetes (due to eating sugar). My suggestion is that we should prioritise disease research and treatment based on how many people are dying and how easily those problems could be solved. But because funding bodies are all human, and all in the developed world, the disease they most fear is cancer.
Regarding food security, there is technically enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, if we could solve the distribution and storage problems and prevent rich governments' protectionist interference in agricultural markets and corruption in developing nations' governments. But a large amount of that wastage is also not really suitable for human nutrition. Probably the fastest way to alleviate hunger is to enable each part of the world to feed itself with food produced nearby. Because we've reached the limits of arable land in much of the world, this means making more land suitable for food production, finding new ways to provide water, and making crops be able to grow better in different conditions. The FAO's State of Food Insecurity report[1] is a good summary.
Life sucks sometimes, but there's so much more we could be doing to make it suck a lot less for a lot of people.
BTW, same thing with researching "illness related to malnourishment": Avoid malnourishment and then, there is no need to cure anything.
Everything is made with corn or corn byproducts and its not healthy at all.. not only that were feeding it to all our animals.. its a bad bad situation how our food supply is treated, and the more we push "lab grown food" the worse its going to get.
Anyway there are many other risk factors, and evidence for corn itself being one is scant. Alcohol intake, smoking, red meat consumption, lack of dietary fibre, high salt levels in one's diet and obesity are much more concerning, given the correlative evidence.
You can taste the difference in a cow that's been fed a corn diet and a cow thats been grass fed. Problem is if you see those cattle lots they have so many head of beef(far to many for the acreage) it's just dirt. Then it's dipped in a bath of ecoli killing shit, and squished up with a bajillion other cows.. it's disgusting. I'll stick to raising my own food.
If you want to invest in anything, buy land.
If science has shown anything, it's that this is the wrong way to think. Leave the answers to those who do the science, feelings are a terrible way to come to conclusions. Blaming corn based on your feelings is irrational and very likely completely wrong.
Yes, the trigger for carcinogenic mutations is mostly environmental influence - some of which can be controlled and some of which can't - but that's no reason to cease funding research into the actual cellular mechanisms of cancer.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/world...
Also, as we are eliminating competing risks, cancer is emerging as a huge source of death in developing economies.
For other diseases - malaria, dengue, hepatitis, typhoid etc., not to mention malnutrition - global spending is massively disporportionate in favour of cancer.
"We haven't found a solution to this problem" is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard to cut back on research.
HIV is a relatively easy problem when compared to cancer.
I mean the average time to pay of a loan is something like 15 years, and given his situation he could probably try to apply for a better deal from the company where he took his loan (decrease monthly amortization costs but increase loan period for example?).
Personally, I will not get hooked by this story and give him money. But point me to the nearest cancer research institution that has made tangible results and I would be happy do donate.
But also, out of personal reasons due to the crappy humans nature we all have, I guess I'm kind of jealous that this guy will be making tons of money on something so bad. I'm a young guy, my girlfriend (my first real love) died last year, and honestly, noone gave a fuck about that.
That's the reason I cannot do both.
I would rather say realist. We live in a society based upon democracy and free will right? I'm not ashamed for my statements.
If you feel that your money is better spent donating to a cancer research center, then please do. But your jealousy is seriously mis-placed and you are seriously confused with regards to my motives. I'm not any more worthy of this than the next guy. That's the simple truth. And asking for help of any kind is the last thing I want to do. But I also can't just die and leave my family to suffer and fight for themselves. My human nature tells me that I should do everything I can to take care of them and to take care of those around me. I can't count the number of times I've done something for a complete stranger, like paying for their meal, just because I felt that I had been blessed that day and there was a need to pass it on.
Even as I sit here and look at what happened with this today I am torn between actually using the donations to pay off our housing and transportation debts along with my final resting place or just giving the money to someone else who needs it more than I do. It is not easy being in the position where I know what my family needs and knowing that there are others who deserve so much more.
I'm sorry that no one was there when your girlfriend died. That is truly sad and shouldn't happen to anyone. I can only hope that you find it in your heart to give something to someone and realize that when you need it most someone will be there for you.
"Even as I sit here and look at what happened with this today I am torn between actually using the donations to pay off our housing and transportation debts along with my final resting place or just giving the money to someone else who needs it more than I do."
Yes, you should be.
If you are really in a dire situation maybe you should look into getting money from the government by participating in research and stuff like that. That's what I would do if I were in your situation.
Hope your last time on this planet is good. This is a process everyone will have to experience eventually I'm afraid. No matter if you are young or old. Crazy thing is that everything will just keep moving on, your kids will grow up, maybe have kids of their own and eventually, in a long time, themselves face the same situation. It's an endless cycle these lives. Even if we can't recognize that because we're stuck in the middle of it trying to make money for our future or something else we aren't sure about.
This is a really good book by the way. Helped me get through the hard times. Although im not sure the english translation is that good.
http://www.amazon.com/Inger-Christensen/dp/0811215946
Good luck. Hope your funding goes well and that it will make you happy.
From what I can find, it seems like the method they are using is incredibly inefficient.
I find it really sucky that it hardly gets any traction anymore. Our combined computing powers are vastly growing every day, yet these efforts are not reaching mainstream. Bigger companies who'd love to show they are involved with the world, would rather post donations.
Maybe donations are more effective, who knows. I have a feeling we are missing out. I've been thinking of ways to have the system get more traction, or something that would stimulate development/improvements of a distributed computing grid for world problems, but can't figure it out.
If anything I would love to contribute my time and efforts to promote such a thing. I think being able to prolong the live expectancy of many patients, cheaper cures, or right-out curing some types of cancer is a very viable platform that could get some traction down these lines, and a very important one at that.
I can see why the idea of looking for ET or analyzing gamma ray bursts to map neutron stars is a bit distant for people.
I think this proves once again that scientists suck at marketing. Maybe we can help out, start a combined collaboration project to improve the efficiency of distributed workloads in this specific field to start with.
As I'm writing this, more and more I want to do this. But I'm just a webdev with the powers of Google at my disposal.
Something something about the largest risk of poverty for middle class people in China is medical expenses.
Source: WHO speaker at a longevity conference I attended.
If someone is too lazy to click and read - Anita healed herself completely from stage 4 cancer by dropping all fears out of her system. Then her body completely healed itself in a few weeks.
Worth spending some research dollars teaching people how to clean their inner emotional states and eliminate debilitating fears that causes sicknesses and so many deaths.
Earth is full. Our population has doubled in the short time I've been alive. Doesn't that scare the shit out of anyone else?
Imagine what would happen if you suddenly cured all forms of cancer. People would live even longer. Population would shoot up. Lack of housing, lack of jobs. More pensioners...
edit: Downvote brigade... why am I wrong? What's going to save us from our own 'success'? How many more billion people can the planet take?
Even if we accepted that Earth is full, surely we don't just let all the poorest people die? And extending that reasoning, why treat any diseases at all?
The fact is that we could feed everyone and cure some of the biggest killers in the world today. These are not insoluble problems, they just aren't priorities for the richest nations because they're happening elsewhere.
But cancer when you're over 60? That's basically just dying of old age...
1) Despite your disclaimer you are sounding unfeeling.
2) It seems convenient for a (presumably) relatively healthy and youthful person to be advocating large sacrifices that will hit others first.
3) Many of us don't share your pessimistic view of human progress. If we can figure out how to thwart death from disease, we can probably figure out how to deal with overpopulation.
4) And of course the obvious, and entirely heartless rejoinder: if you're so keen on death to reduce overpopulation, isn't it a bit selfish of you to keep on living?
This is a slippery slope and the only solution is not to go down it.
A quick google search shows that whilst population was pretty stable in UK in the 80s, since then it's been steadily rising. Growth is now 0.75% a year.
But that growth rate is deceptive. Look at
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
But that growth rate is deceptive - it "looks" low. But if you check the absolute numbers:
In the UK, population has grown by around 10% in the last 20 years, and it's on an increasingly upward trend.
https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
Just anecdotally, if you live in the UK, you'll know how many new homes they're building all over the countryside.
World population: https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
I'm glad you can see that graph levelling off, but I can't see it...
The US has a similar story, fertility rate below 2.0 plus migration from the third world results in net population growth, even though the population of the US is no longer "exploding".
Population growth is not really exponential, it's rather an S-curve. As soon as the quality of life reaches a certain threshold, that growth stagnates. And btw, we have long surpassed the need to be healthy in order to reproduce. Assuming somebody that dies at 35 for various reasons, by then that person could have given birth to 10 children already, something which happens quite often in the impoverished populations of third-world countries.
At this point, what we really need to do in order to survive as a species is in fact to eliminate premature death, to raise the quality of life for everybody and to find ways to drop the cost of energy and food to zero - a long shot, but in such a future money wouldn't be needed anymore to simply live, the economy wouldn't depend anymore on birth rate and maybe we would stop feeling the need to destroy our environment for profit. And maybe we won't feel the need to give birth to children in order to survive.
Besides, unless you're a selfish jerk (and selfish jerks don't contribute much to our species btw), you should agree with me that nothing is more valuable than human life.
Your comment is also unfeeling (as you suspected), especially in the context of this thread. I think that if you or a loved one were dying of cancer, it's unlikely that your overwhelming emotion would be gratitude that you/he/she are doing your/his/her part to help with the overpopulation problem. That may, in fact, be one point that's earning you the downvotes.
Would a subsequent increase in the population present challenges? Perhaps. But, there are other, more humane ways to deal with the problem than just letting people die of cancer. I mean, where does the logic end? Should we let known carcinogens stay in the food supply? Encourage people to smoke again?
And, the issues you cited (housing, jobs, pensions) are all fixable immediately. That is, we are not suffering from a lack of wealth or resources in these regards, but rather the distribution thereof. So, you happened to pick some really bad examples that nod to implications of economic injustice. That may be another point that is earning you downvotes.
Hans Rosling, "What Stops Population Growth?" http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth...
In Malthus's model, new people only consume food and breed. But we do this other cool thing, too, we also think about human problems and how to solve them. We all add resources to the computer of humanity.
Some really cool, like Norman Borlaug, go around the world and teach people how to grow more reliable crops, stopping famines, increasing the reliability and scale of the food supply while lowering the resources it takes to produce the food. It's sometimes said he's saved a billion lives. He did so without increasing the strain on others, but by spreading knowledge and increasing efficiency, maybe even lowering the strain on the planet.
Humanity's ability to solve problems isn't in a flat linear relationship with how many people we have either. If we just have 100 people, they all have to farm all the time, and can't stop and think about much. With a billion people, we get economies of scale, so we just need 40% to be farmers, and we can have, say, 20% work on logistics, 10% work on massive aqueducts and public infrastructure, and 10% be scientists and inventors.
At a certain point, every additional person makes it easier for more people to survive on the planet. And yes, there is some raw physical limit to population on this rock... but visit the Russian Taiga, Wyoming, Namibia, or Mongolia. We're nowhere near that point yet, it's several orders of magnitude away. And if you note Rosling's points, we probably won't keep growing anyway.
He notes that population growth is really a switch towards health systems with lower infant mortality. You have previous generations that keep having 10 kids because only one or two of them will survive, then the health conditions improve and suddenly all of them survive. The next generation or so reverts to normal family planning, having just one or two kids. Malthus was wrong to suggest that people just breed as much as humanly possible.
All that said, I don't think you should be downvoted for asking a question. If we buried every premise we disagreed with, we'd never get a chance to lay out the reasons we believe the opposite, we'd never convince anyone. We'd just be insisting on dogmatic agreement, rather than any actual understanding of the complex issues.
As well as a whole host of other problems, such as people switching to profitable crops to export rather than to feed the local population.
1. oil and gas are strictly "required" as an energy source
2. energy consumption of these methods is higher per yield than traditional farming
3. oil/gas will run out in any meaningful time frame
4. peak oil/gas will be sudden or catastrophic
5. adaptation to new conditions is impossible
6. exporting profitable crops is a net social loss for a local population (or even the stronger corollary, that locovorism is ever beneficial)
Some of those are contentious areas, matters of continuing study. Some are probably hyperbole, and we'd likely agree on more moderate formulations. Some I'm pretty firmly convinced are incorrect. Even if they were all just mildly suspect, though, it's a lot of shaky steps for me to take all at once. So I remain cautiously optimistic, skeptical that food insecurity due to Borlaug's methods and oil shocks will have any meaningful impact for the next fiftyish years. I guess there's some chance, just seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
That said, I think you laid out your criticism of his methods in a clear and concise way, and while I disagree with some of the premises, they're not radically unreasonable or anything, I can see how one would stand by that conclusion. Have an upvote for a well formulated dissenting view, something we should all encourage whenever possible.
You might find Jevon's paradox interesting.
Even in developing countries such as Bangladesh the average family now as 2 children due to education and great progress in women's rights.
I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but population peak will be more than manageable.
The problem will providing energy when everyone on the planet wants a washing machine.
World population. Up and to the right.
UN projects the population to peak in 2075, at a bit over 9 billion, with yearly growth rates having dropped to 0.33% in 2050 based on current trends. Post 2075 they project a population drop as many more countries will have dropped below "maintenance" birth rates, like large parts of Europe.
Hypotheses and projections are constantly refined. But in comparison to estimates on things like coal or climate, the population growth models are almost trivially simple, and while the numbers are adjusted up and down regularly to account for actual data, all data we have show the population growth consistently slowing down.
For starters, one of the things that make the population models straightforward compared to a lot of other things we might try to model, is that we can compare countries, and as it happens there are patterns that have consistently applied to countries as they develop, and that we have detailed data on: As life expectancy increases, growth rates drop to near or below maintenance rates.
Unless the remaining countries with rapid growth are somehow drastically different, it would take massive, earth-shattering changes for the population growth not to stop. It's not realistically a question of if it stops, but when and how high the peak will be, and how much the population will fall back afterwards before growth resumes (the expectation is that it will fall back because we get a "bulge" similar to what we're seeing these days due to the baby-boomer generation, and eventually the people in that bulge will start to die off).
Even many developing countries have long ago entered into the phase where it is not birth rates that is the cause of ongoing growth, but improving life expectancy, which means that their growth will eventually stop.
And with countries like China heading rapidly towards contraction as early as 2030 (with net growth now down to around 1/3 of its peak in the mid 80's, driven by a fertility rate far below maintenance), even the remaining high growth countries would have to dramaticall raise their population growth if we are to continue seeing overall growth.
Population growth is usually expected to be exponential. The fact that the graph looks linear we could interpret as a positive sign.
Also, if we check out the Earth's growth rate [1], the percentages have indeed slowed down. The left part (1965 - 1970) peaking at 2.10% looks like Generation X, the children of the baby boomers. The latest datum at 2012 returns 1.15%, and is still trending slightly negative.
The growth rate charts become more interesting as you isolate specific regions and countries. Sub-Saharan is the only region which is mostly trending positive [2]. Japan has received some press in recent years because its growth rate has actually crossed the x-axis[3] .
[1] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
[2] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
[3] https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9...
- The growth rate is slowing. The growth in absolute terms is still sufficient to make the line look near linear when you look at it over such a long time span, especially given that life expectancy is also increasing almost everywhere (see my last point below).
- The growth rate is fairly low. E.g. around 2005, the growth rate was about 1.1%, and the decline is slow (e.g. it's projected to get to around 0.33% or so around middle of the century), so seeing the change on a graph that plots billions of people against a period of decades gets tricky.
- There are large temporal distortions due to changes in life expectancy, and the size of generations. To give an extreme example: Consider if a population to begin with was static - births and deaths were perfectly matched. Now consider if this population stopped having children, yet at the same time, everyone started living 40 years longer. In this (totally impossible of course) scenario, it would take 40 years from the birthrate collapsed until the population size would start dropping. While something that extremely obviously would not happen, less extreme variations are. E.g. some areas of China has a birth rate of well below 1 child per woman, and the country as a whole is well below 2, while you need somewat more than 2 to maintain a population (to account for men + people who never procreate), but the population is still increasing because population is still young on average due to the massive population growth in the 50's and 60's coupled with rapidly increasing life expectancy.
This last point means that we're still seeing a combination of the effect of birth rates going as far back as at least 1950's and all increases in life expectancy since, that correctly reflects current growth, but gives us a very distorted idea of where the population size is headed.
Most projections have the worlds population set to start reducing again within a few decades, and then likely stabilise well below the projected peak.
Here is UN's latest revision of their "World Population to 2300" report: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Wo...
This report presents a main scenario with a peak of 9.22 billion in 2075, followed by a drop and slow resumption of growth towards 8.97 billion by 2300. It references older UN projections that indicates a range from 7.4 billion to 10.6 billion for 2050 depending on scenario.
This current report assumes 8.9 billion for 2050, and projects annual increases in population sizes down to 0.33% in 2045-2050, vs. 1.22% in 2000-2005
This comes as more and more countries sees rapid decline in birth rates equivalent to those that the developed world has already seen.
Particularly look at pages 6-8 in the report, where you can get an idea what we would expect to see if cancer was "cured": Life expectancy and fertility mirror each other closely. As we live longer, we put off having children, have fewer children, or opt not to have children at all.
Even if we were to cure all forms of cancer, people would continue to die of other causes eventually. At most a cure would lead the population size to level out at a somewhat higher level because we might have children proportionally earlier in a life span so generations would overlap more. But we have to deal with these population numbers without a cure for cancer too, to deal with the bulge around the peak population sizes expected.
While pension-age might be a problem, if people remain healthier longer there's little reason not to increase the pension age, as some countries have already started doing.
Many of us in the sidelines have survived cancer, have cancer, or have close family dying of cancer. There is a time and place for personal soapboxes. This is not it. Have some compassion.
Point taken though...