Too many people?

[bilby]

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. putting effective contraception in the hands of women, and giving girls access to a basic education

FTFY.

It is possible, but from my reading of history and human behavior, I’d think it would take generations for that to work.

Are you in a hurry? We have generations, if we need them.

 

[bilby]

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.

No, the problem is that we choose to do those things.

We have the ability to destroy every major city on the planet in nuclear fire. But as long as we don't choose to employ that ability, it's really not a problem that it exists.

We have the ability to live energy intensive lives without burning fossil fuels at all. We just choose, stupidly, not to do it.

Having more abilities is a good thing. Choosing not to employ them for the benefit of all; Or worse, to actively employ them for harmful purposes to the benefit of a wealthy few - now that's a problem.

And it's not a problem that worrying about absolute population will help with (unless you're one of that wealthy few, looking for a way to distract the rest of the people from your perfidy).

 

[bilby]

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

So you are saying there can never be too many people?

No, I am saying that there never will be.

Worrying about something that's not actually happening is dumb, even if that thing would be disastrous if it occurred.

If I told you that we needn't worry about the Earth plunging into the Sun, would you assume that I was saying that humans can live just fine inside the Sun? Because that would be a very silly rhetorical point to make, for reasons that I hope are bleeding obvious.

 

[bilby]

No, this is slightly different at least as you stated it.

Your failure to understand what I was trying to say might well be my fault for not being clear.

Your contradiction of my clarification, and claim that what I say I meant isn't what I must actually have meant, is entirely a you problem, though.

If you won't accept that I am more of an authority than literally anyone else - including you - on the subject "What is bilby's opinion?", then I really can't help you.

 

[Merle]

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

Because we struck oil.

We now use 10 calories of fossil fuels for every calorie of food we eat. The resulting fertilizers, tractors, ovens, and trucks have greatly increased the availability of food. Malthus didn't know that was going to happen.

The problem is that the fossil fuels won't last forever. And we really don't have anything that can replace them to the magnitude that fossil fuels are currently used.

And another problem is that fossil fuel have allowed billions to live at a standard of living far above what is natural. The result is a strain on the environment that could some day make population come crashing down. Its called overshoot.

Murphy is speaking tongue in cheek when he calls Malthus an optimist. Malthus thought we would slowly reach the limit, and the population would stop growing. He had no idea that vast supplies of energy would allow humanity to far overshoot the capacity of the Earth, resulting in a possible catastrophic collapse.

 

[Elixir]

Because we struck oil.

Now we have nuclear. Malthus neglected the acceleration of technology in his projections.

 

[bilby]

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?

It is possible that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe (an insanely big place). We so far do not have any proof that we aren't according to science. Which would mean we are extremely rare and worthy to be preserved at all possible cost.

It's possible that I am a multimillionaire, as I haven't yet checked this week's lottery numbers.

I don't have any proof that I am not, according to science.

Which would mean I needn't bother going to work today.

Do you imagine that not bothering to go to work today is a wise choice?

The probability that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe is FAR lower than the probability that I have won the lottery. Because, as a wise man once said, it's "(an insanely big place)".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, I am saying that there never will be.

Worrying about something that's not actually happening is dumb, even if that thing would be disastrous if it occurred.

I would like to see the Human population down to a couple billion max. Not all at once, of course.

What is your upper number? Is there a number you think is unhealthy wrt the planet and other species?

 

[bilby]

The problem is that the fossil fuels won't last forever. And we really don't have anything that can replace them to the magnitude that fossil fuels are currently used.

Yes, we do. Have had since the 1950s.

 

[Merle]

Because we struck oil.

Now we have nuclear. Malthus neglected the acceleration of technology in his projections.

Ah, you want to go nuclear. We certainly will try that in the future, but it is far less practical as an energy source.

 

[Merle]

The problem is that the fossil fuels won't last forever. And we really don't have anything that can replace them to the magnitude that fossil fuels are currently used.

Yes, we do. Have had since the 1950s.

And what have we had that since the 50's that can replace fossil fuels on the scale we use them today?

 

[Elixir]

The probability that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe is FAR lower than the probability that I have won the lottery. Because, as a wise man once said, it's "(an insanely big place)".

It’s a certainty FAPP in my mind, that there is, has been and/or will be intelligent life in the universe other than earth.
What I wonder is, is intelligence a lethal mutation? Do intelligent species focus their intelligence on exploiting their own environment to a point where that environment becomes hostile to the species? Do they tend more to use their intelligence to reach a point of stability that permits longer term survival?
IOW, I wonder what the average lifespan is of an intelligent and technological species.

 

[bilby]

And another problem is that fossil fuel have allowed billions to live at a standard of living far above what is natural.

Literally every human invention since the flint hand-axe has done this.

"Natural" isn't synonymous with "good"; Almost every aspect of your life isn't natural, and that's a very good thing indeed.

Nature wants you to die before the age of thirty from some endemic disease, a wild animal attack, malnutrition, or hypothermia, leaving your ten children to mostly starve.

 

[Elixir]

Because we struck oil.

Now we have nuclear. Malthus neglected the acceleration of technology in his projections.

Ah, you want to go nuclear. We certainly will try that in the future, but it is far less practical as an energy source.

Only because it has been vilified. Unjustly. It is safe, cost effective, produces copious energy and gets better all the time.
Yes I want to go nuclear.

 

[laughing dog]

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. putting effective contraception in the hands of women, and giving girls access to a basic education

FTFY.

It is possible, but from my reading of history and human behavior, I’d think it would take generations for that to work.

Are you in a hurry? We have generations, if we need them.

No, I don’t think a policy of intentional population reduction is possible in a humane fashion. I’d like to think it is possible, but I don’t.

And I am not as sanguine as you appear to be about the number of generations it would take to get the population to 2 billion without some catastrophe of some sort.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your contradiction of my clarification, and claim that what I say I meant isn't what I must actually have meant, is entirely a you problem, though.

Read my post again. I accepted your clarification, I was just being (probably unnecessarily argumentatively) critical of your wording, and clarifying what your original unclear wording actually stated.

 

[Merle]

We actually don't even need another planets or moons to colonize if we can build suitable habitats in space. And yes it is possible (we actually set foot on the moon in the 1960's) but it won't ever happen with your "can't do anything" attitude.

OK, so we have two choices: We can either spend billions of dollars to build space platforms that will house say 10% of the population in space, or we can have 10% fewer people.

10% fewer people seems like a better option to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

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. putting effective contraception in the hands of women, and giving girls access to a basic education

FTFY.

It is possible, but from my reading of history and human behavior, I’d think it would take generations for that to work.

Are you in a hurry? We have generations, if we need them.

No, I don’t think a policy of intentional population reduction is possible in a humane fashion. I’d like to think it is possible, but I don’t.

And I am not as sanguine as you appear to be about the number of generations it would take to get the population to 2 billion without some catastrophe of some sort.

I mean, I laid out a roadmap of how to do it in clearly ethical ways, and also in ways that push at but do not outright break the ethical boundaries.

It's clear that there is a lot of space on the margins to cut growth, and if all these margins are pushed upon, there is a really strong indication it can be accomplished.

 

[bilby]

No, I am saying that there never will be.

Worrying about something that's not actually happening is dumb, even if that thing would be disastrous if it occurred.

I would like to see the Human population down to a couple billion max. Not all at once, of course.

I would be surprised if it didn't get down to that level eventually. Rich people don't want big families; And people are getting richer all the time.

What is your upper number? Is there a number you think is unhealthy wrt the planet and other species?

Not really; It's a pointless exercise, with too many unknowns to be considered.

Based on the clear fact that we are currently easily able to feed everyone; and that we've barely scratched the surface of the lithosphere, but still it's mostly cheaper to mine new stuff than it is to recycle the stuff we've already extracted, I would say that at least twice the maximum plausible number of humans is readily sustainable on Earth given sensible use of technology. Somewhere around the twenty or thirty billion mark, maybe? We're not going to get close to that number, so we will never know (nor need to know).

If we did get up around that number, it might well prove to be still nowhere near any important limit. The lithosphere is enormous, and as long as there's plenty of energy available, the number of people it can sustain in luxury is very large indeed.

And there's plenty of energy available without burning fossil fuels.

 

[Elixir]

The Ringworlds and Dyson Spheres are a long way off. We should try to survive while we’re working on it.