Too many people?

[Elixir]

The Cult of Civilization Some surprising insights, including that Thomas Malthus was an optimist!

If Malthus was an optimist why aren’t we all dead?

earth's population was estimated to be about 2 billion people about 100 years ago (1927). It is insane to think it is possible to intentionally return to that level without inhuman behavior.

Inhumane?
No worries - we can do that.
I doubt that we will, though. Almost every conceivable route from here to a 2b global population means such catastrophic events that it would put science and technology into retrograde, or lost altogether. I wouldn’t want to live in that world.

 

[laughing dog]

The Cult of Civilization Some surprising insights, including that Thomas Malthus was an optimist!

If Malthus was an optimist why aren’t we all dead?

Being an optimist doesn't make one an accurate forecaster.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where's the evidence that today's population is too high?

Its in the math.

The math says that developing enough anti-matter to do anything useful with it on Earth is impossible. The math does not say that we can't feed 10 billion people on the planet. We aren't remotely close to max ag production yet. Thorium and Uranium are likely centralized sources for widespread electricity production. My concern would be cars and what not... as the universal recyclable vehicle battery doesn't exist yet. This is less an issue in Europe as it is in North America where suburbs fucked things up.

Regardless, you are welcome to help contribute to reducing our global population, but I wouldn't recommend it. For the life of me, I can't understand why some people try to solve problems that aren't the ones that absolutely need to be addressed (or even real).

 

[James Brown]

My son is the only child of an only child of an only child.

I think I've done my bit.

 

[Politesse]

To suggest that we could continue to burn fossil fuels, but first we should kill off a lot of the people so that we don't generate too much carbon dioxide, is batshit insane.

Are they imagining that after the Great Purge, they'll start shutting down power plants to save on energy?

 

[Politesse]

If Malthus was an optimist why aren’t we all dead?

Malthus did see this as an inevitably repeating cycle. Neither predictions of mass extinction nor attempts to stop overpopulation make much sense in the context of his actual writings.

But Malthus is one of those people who is talked about more than read.

 

[Politesse]

From what I can tell, earth's population was estimated to be about 2 billion people about 100 years ago (1927). It is insane to think it is possible to intentionally return to that level without inhuman behavior.

Just pass out a bunch of condoms, it will be fine.

 

[RVonse]

IMO Musk has the correct response that we should be looking to Mars and/or the rest of the universe to at least further our overall odds against extinction. Because you can explore and conquer other planets without pissing anyone off who wants to have babies. Exploration and science will work when politics and dictating reproduction can't.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but no, you won't be taking a trip to Mars to see your grandchildren. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ .

1) When it comes to technology how can we know if/when or how soon? Its more a case of ambition than it is engineering anyway.
2) Visiting grandchildren is not the purpose. Probability of survival is the goal.

 

[rousseau]

The absolute number of people is not simply a distraction. The population total influences the order of magnitude of the problems.

Now, that doesn't mean a partial solution is to systematically reduce the number of people on the planet.

That's true, but I didn't want to over-complicate things. My meaning was more along the lines of - we keep discussing the quantity of actual humans like that's a major component of the problem.

The problem is that we have the ability to combust fossil fuels, and clear acres of forest in a day.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IMO Musk has the correct response that we should be looking to Mars and/or the rest of the universe to at least further our overall odds against extinction. Because you can explore and conquer other planets without pissing anyone off who wants to have babies. Exploration and science will work when politics and dictating reproduction can't.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but no, you won't be taking a trip to Mars to see your grandchildren. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ .

1) When it comes to technology how can we know if/when or how soon? Its more a case of ambition than it is engineering anyway.
2) Visiting grandchildren is not the purpose. Probability of survival is the goal.

Probability of survival on Mars... because that'd be the extent of it... mere survival. And if it is an issue of human survival on Earth being doomed, it ain't us proles heading to the Crimson hell hole.

We are hundreds of years, at best, away from a civilization on Mars (where civilization is a number notably larger than 10,000).

*explosions all around, person rushing to Musk Miracle Rocket*
A: Did you get it?
B: The seed depository was blown up.
A: Oh no!
B: It is okay. I managed to grab several boxes of seeds.
A: Able to get a selection.
B: No, just one vegetable was all I could find.
A: Well, we are going to have to live with it... these are the last samples from Earth Mars will ever get. I hope I like it, we'll be eating it almost exclusively.
B: Everyone loves broccoli.
*zoom out while rocket begins takeoff*
A: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*Meanwhile on Mars*

Aristocracy A: Man, I'm hungry for dinner.
Aristocracy B: Me too. Who makes the food around here?
*Aristocracy looks at each other*
Aristocracy A: Ah shit.
*Aristocracy P walks in holding a plate*
Aristocracy P: Anyone know how to wash one of these things?

 

[RVonse]

IMO Musk has the correct response that we should be looking to Mars and/or the rest of the universe to at least further our overall odds against extinction. Because you can explore and conquer other planets without pissing anyone off who wants to have babies. Exploration and science will work when politics and dictating reproduction can't.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but no, you won't be taking a trip to Mars to see your grandchildren. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ .

1) When it comes to technology how can we know if/when or how soon? Its more a case of ambition than it is engineering anyway.
2) Visiting grandchildren is not the purpose. Probability of survival is the goal.

Probability of survival on Mars... because that'd be the extent of it... mere survival. And if it is an issue of human survival on Earth being doomed, it ain't us proles heading to the Crimson hell hole.

We are hundreds of years, at best, away from a civilization on Mars (where civilization is a number notably larger than 10,000).

*explosions all around, person rushing to Musk Miracle Rocket*
A: Did you get it?
B: The seed depository was blown up.
A: Oh no!
B: It is okay. I managed to grab several boxes of seeds.
A: Able to get a selection.
B: No, just one vegetable was all I could find.
A: Well, we are going to have to live with it... these are the last samples from Earth Mars will ever get. I hope I like it, we'll be eating it almost exclusively.
B: Everyone loves broccoli.
*zoom out while rocket begins takeoff*
A: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The vision is to continue expanding outward to other places past Mars. If Mars dies, then there are still people on the moon, earth, and/or other planets to restart humanity again. A life insurance policy for the human species.

 

[abaddon]

The insane apes can't even tend to their actual paradise in an otherwise hostile universe. This is the problem to solve. Not overpopulation, not whether we lunatic humans have enough resources to keep living in our cancer-like way on the planet. Civilization will change to be sustainable (meaning it'll live mutually with the rest of life on this planet), or collapse.

Nobody even mentioned the other life on earth until page 3 of this thread. That's how it tends to go whenever this topic comes up. WHY should humans survive if they can't expand the circle of moral regard to include other life? HOW will they survive if they don't?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IMO Musk has the correct response that we should be looking to Mars and/or the rest of the universe to at least further our overall odds against extinction. Because you can explore and conquer other planets without pissing anyone off who wants to have babies. Exploration and science will work when politics and dictating reproduction can't.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but no, you won't be taking a trip to Mars to see your grandchildren. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ .

1) When it comes to technology how can we know if/when or how soon? Its more a case of ambition than it is engineering anyway.
2) Visiting grandchildren is not the purpose. Probability of survival is the goal.

Probability of survival on Mars... because that'd be the extent of it... mere survival. And if it is an issue of human survival on Earth being doomed, it ain't us proles heading to the Crimson hell hole.

We are hundreds of years, at best, away from a civilization on Mars (where civilization is a number notably larger than 10,000).

*explosions all around, person rushing to Musk Miracle Rocket*
A: Did you get it?
B: The seed depository was blown up.
A: Oh no!
B: It is okay. I managed to grab several boxes of seeds.
A: Able to get a selection.
B: No, just one vegetable was all I could find.
A: Well, we are going to have to live with it... these are the last samples from Earth Mars will ever get. I hope I like it, we'll be eating it almost exclusively.
B: Everyone loves broccoli.
*zoom out while rocket begins takeoff*
A: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The vision is to continue expanding outward to other places past Mars.

That isn't vision, that is fantasy. Musk doesn't get to take credit for people wanting to explore space. That existed over 100 years ago.

If Mars dies, then there are still people on the moon, earth, and/or other planets to restart humanity again.

Other planets? There are no other planets. Mercury, Venus are no-go's. Jupiter and Saturn are not going to work, and if Mars didn't cut it, Uranus and Neptune, not happening.

A life insurance policy for the human species.

Quite possibly the dumbest fucking insurance policy out there. If we can't make it on Earth where resources are ridiculuosly abundant, how the heck do we make it anywhere else?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Population isn't relevant to any solutions to any of our problems.

So you are saying there can never be too many people? Is that true for all species in an ecosystem?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Population isn't relevant to any solutions to any of our problems.

So you are saying there can never be too many people? Is that true for all species in an ecosystem?

bilby didn't say anything like that. He said our population isn't relevant to our existing problems.

Simple, imagine, Earth is smacked by an asteroid the size of Rhode Island tomorrow. Is trying to tend and care for 8 billion much different than 1 billion of 100 million when the entire system has been toasted?

 

[rousseau]

The insane apes can't even tend to their actual paradise in an otherwise hostile universe. This is the problem to solve. Not overpopulation, not whether we lunatic humans have enough resources to keep living in our cancer-like way on the planet. Civilization will change to be sustainable (meaning it'll live mutually with the rest of life on this planet), or collapse.

Nobody even mentioned the other life on earth until page 3 of this thread. That's how it tends to go whenever this topic comes up. WHY should humans survive if they can't expand the circle of moral regard to include other life? HOW will they survive if they don't?

If you want to get really pedantic, in practice there's no difference between us and other life, and it takes a small helping of anthropocentrism to think we can control our fate in the first place. Historically, no person or group is in 'control' in any meaningful sense. We're living in monolith that moves as it does.

I also think spending our time at IIDB likely gives us a warped sense of what people are really like. For every person debating philosophy, there's three hundred thousand following Bieber and Ronaldo on Twitter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Completely disagree. We manipulated our environment to meet our needs to levels unseen by other animals. Yes, animals and insects do use the environment, but we do it at a grand scale. And if super advanced races are out there, they do it at even larger scales.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Population isn't relevant to any solutions to any of our problems.

So you are saying there can never be too many people? Is that true for all species in an ecosystem?

bilby didn't say anything like that. He said our population isn't relevant to our existing problems.

Simple, imagine, Earth is smacked by an asteroid the size of Rhode Island tomorrow. Is trying to tend and care for 8 billion much different than 1 billion of 100 million when the entire system has been toasted?

He said population doesn't matter, that it's not relevant to any problems humans face. So my question stands. You did not answer it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Completely disagree. We manipulated our environment to meet our needs to levels unseen by other animals. Yes, animals and insects do use the environment, but we do it at a grand scale. And if super advanced races are out there, they do it at even larger scales.

So you are only interested in quantity. Quality doesn't matter. Is that your point? If it is then we agree, and I would agree with Bilby too. Fuck everything that doesn't meet our immediate survival needs. That would be a pretty fucked up existence and a lot more people can be around.