Too many people?

[bilby]

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.

Do NOT get me started.

Suffice to say you couldn't be more wrong. Nuclear is FAR more practical than fossil fuel.

 

[Merle]

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.

Which brings us to the opening post. Saier suggested we need a "substantial population reduction". How big is this substantial reduction? If he means 10%, one wanders why we need this. Could we not just all lower our standard of living 10%? That should accomplish the same thing.

But if the choice for the next century is to either reduce population to 25% of current levels, or have everybody live at 25% of current levels, one can see why a reduction in population might be part of the answer.

 

[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.

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).

I know that you're generally aiming at actually solving our problems. I'm more aimed at discussing what those problems really are.

So the first thing is, even if we manage to solve the fossil fuel problem, whatever that would look like, we have absolutely no idea what unintended consequences will come from said solution. Right now we're sitting in a black box trying to put out fires as quickly as we can, and we have absolutely no concept of where these new solutions will lead. Even if we did know, would we be able to choose a different path? Unintended consequences are the defining point of our history, and I don't see how that's going to change.

The other thing is, again we solve the fossil fuel problem. But we're still left with billions of power-hungry people, and no meaningful way to regulate them. Maybe we solve some temporary problems in the short-term, but I don't see how in 300, 500, 1000 more years - we're not going to keep doing anything more than exploiting the environment.

 

[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.

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

If you don't already know my opinion, a search on this board for posts containing the word "nuclear" and my username will get you more of it that you probably want.

Most people here are aware that I lean ever so slightly towards the opinion that more use of nuclear power might not be a completely terrible idea.

 

[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.

If I was interested in surviving in a decimated Earth, I might try building my house under the ocean or on the South Pole. That would be far easier and cheaper than building a house on Mars, and would yield a far better quality of life.

You might not have the time and it may not work depending on the catastrophe.

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.

Using that reasoning, manatees or butterflies or polar bears are extremely rare and worthy to be preserved.

They are life but they aren't intelligent. Humans alone are the only species of life (known by current science) that has ever used tools and technology. As rare as life is....humans are even more rare.

 

[bilby]

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 am talking about nothing more inhumane than widely available education (particularly for girls), and unconstrained availability of effective contraception.

The number of generations that would be required to reach 2 billion, with a general fertility rate of ~1.7 per woman (the current rate in the USA) is surprisingly small; The number with a general fertility rate of ~0.8 (the current rate in South Korea) is far smaller.

The same maths that made people panic about population growth, also applies to population decline.

 

[Merle]

I lean ever so slightly towards the opinion that more use of nuclear power might not be a completely terrible idea.

I lean strongly to that opinion.

But I see no way that nuclear is going to replace fossil fuels.

 

[RVonse]

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.

Which brings us to the opening post. Saier suggested we need a "substantial population reduction". How big is this substantial reduction? If he means 10%, one wanders why we need this. Could we not just all lower our standard of living 10%? That should accomplish the same thing.

But if the choice for the next century is to either reduce population to 25% of current levels, or have everybody live at 25% of current levels, one can see why a reduction in population might be part of the answer.

But you can't do any of this. Even if you are right (a big assumption) there is no method to do any of this. Each country does whatever they wants to do. And in most free countries, those citizens basically do what they want to do.

The only plausible way to accomplish population reduction is to become "Klaus Schwab dictator of the world" and that entails a lot of freedom lost by a lot of people.

 

[Merle]

The number of generations that would be required to reach 2 billion, with a general fertility rate of ~1.7 per woman (the current rate in the USA) is surprisingly small;

The problem is that we may not have 10 generations.

The calculation in the opening post said it could be done in about 72 years if the average number of annual births averaged 20% of the current rate for the next 72 years. That does not seem at all feasible to me.

 

[Merle]

But you can't do any of this. Even if you are right (a big assumption) there is no method to do any of this. Each country does whatever they wants to do. And in most free countries, those citizens basically do what they want to do.

The only plausible way to accomplish population reduction is to become "Klaus Schwab dictator of the world" and that entails a lot of freedom lost by a lot of people.

Understood.

The article I was referring to in the opening post suggested the required reduction could be done in a fairly short time if people worked together. That seems a little optimistic.

By the way, I was thinking of submitting a version of the opening post as a letter to the editor. What do you think? If you were writing a letter to the editor, how might you word it differently?

 

[Elixir]

The problem is that we may not have 10 generations.

So, what happens then?
I don’t expect the species will just blink out Like a light.
Even if only one of a million humans survives whatever calamity awaits, that leaves several thousand to comprise a possible breeding population. A couple hundred thousand years later they’ll be writing bibles again….

 

[bilby]

I lean ever so slightly towards the opinion that more use of nuclear power might not be a completely terrible idea.

I lean strongly to that opinion.

But I see no way that nuclear is going to replace fossil fuels.

Ask the French.

 

[bilby]

The only plausible way to accomplish population reduction is to become "Klaus Schwab dictator of the world" and that entails a lot of freedom lost by a lot of people.

Right now, the only way to prevent population reduction is to take a draconian and dictatorial approach.

It's going to happen unless the power hungry lunatics (I'm looking at the religious conservatives) get their way. In Africa, reductions in fertility rate are being actively blocked by the Christians and the Muslims, both of whom hope to win the continent by out-breeding their opposition.

Everywhere else, the totalitarians are losing ground. The Pope has completely lost control of Irish fertility, and the Irish people are taking power into their own hands. Similar things are happening in South and Central America.

You don't need to curtail freedom in order to reduce population; You just need to let it flourish.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that we may not have 10 generations.

Is it?

What is your evidence that we don't, probably don't, or even possibly don't have ten generations?

 

[laughing dog]

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 am talking about nothing more inhumane than widely available education (particularly for girls), and unconstrained availability of effective contraception.

I understand that. I am just not as sanguine about the longer run effectiveness. Humans have an annoying propensity to deviate from policy.

The number of generations that would be required to reach 2 billion, with a general fertility rate of ~1.7 per woman (the current rate in the USA) is surprisingly small; The number with a general fertility rate of ~0.8 (the current rate in South Korea) is far smaller.

The same maths that made people panic about population growth, also applies to population decline.

“Suprisingly small” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t panic about population growth (positive or negative). I am much more concerned about the longer run implications of climate change and water availability. Of course wars over water would help somewhat with any population problem.

 

[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.

Which brings us to the opening post. Saier suggested we need a "substantial population reduction". How big is this substantial reduction? If he means 10%, one wanders why we need this. Could we not just all lower our standard of living 10%? That should accomplish the same thing.

But if the choice for the next century is to either reduce population to 25% of current levels, or have everybody live at 25% of current levels, one can see why a reduction in population might be part of the answer.

But you can't do any of this. Even if you are right (a big assumption) there is no method to do any of this. Each country does whatever they wants to do. And in most free countries, those citizens basically do what they want to do.

The only plausible way to accomplish population reduction is to become "Klaus Schwab dictator of the world" and that entails a lot of freedom lost by a lot of people.

No, they don't. 63% of female persons don't want kids, but far more than 37% of female persons have kids, so clearly they aren't doing what they want.

 

[bilby]

And climate change is disrupting supply lines and leading to more severe and frequent weather events in the African Sahel.

Well, that's certainly true. When you have a city of three million people, in a region with annual rainfall of only 100-150mm (a figure that has declined recently due in large part to climate change), the surrounding countryside simply cannot possibly produce enough food for everyone, and starvation and poverty are the inevitable consequence.

Oh, wait. Sorry, those are the figures for Las Vegas, Nevada, which isn't currently the subject of any World Food Programme Emergency status.

So why is Las Vegas not the centre of a famine stricken disaster zone?

Why can't we make the Sahel more like Arizona or Nevada to live in? The answer clearly isn't solely to do with either climate or population density. It's more complicated than that. Much more complicated.

But it's much more easy to just declare that these damn Nevadans Africans just need to stop breeding like rabbits, than it is to actually come up with real ways to move from one condition to the other.

Maybe we should open some casinos in Eritrea, or Burkina Faso, or The Gambia.

It's a cinch that in a place where farming is difficult, it's a poor idea to try to base the economy on farming. There are lots of very wealthy and very arid places in the world; And even more places that are incredibly wealthy without any possible way to grow enough food for everyone to eat.

The solution to the inability of Sudanese people to grow sufficient food is the exact same solution I use personally, to address the self same problem that I too am not able to grow my own food. I do something else that people pay me to do, and use the money to buy food from people who are good at producing it, and who have the land, climate, tools and skills necessary to specialise in it.

The world is currently producing more food than is necessary to overfeed absolutely everyone currently alive. More people worldwide suffer health problems due to overeating than suffer due to lack of food.

There's no food shortage; There's just a distribution of wealth problem. And if you think that dramatically lower population levels would help with distribution of wealth, you're probably not aware of the history of humanity.

When population levels were far lower, people still starved while their kings ate like, well, kings.

 

[Merle]

“Suprisingly small” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t panic about population growth (positive or negative). I am much more concerned about the longer run implications of climate change and water availability.

OK, but the human-caused CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is equal to the number of humans times the amount per person. The amount of fresh water consumed by people is the number of humans times the amount per person. Likewise for fish killed, for air pollution, for forest destruction, for oil burned, etc. Cutting all those amounts per person in half is basically the same thing as cutting prosperity in half. So if we needed to cut all this in half for our great grandchildren, our choices might be a) to have them all live with half the prosperity, or b) to find a way to peacefully reduce the population of that generation in half, or c) some combination of the two. What sounds best to you?

 

[laughing dog]

“Suprisingly small” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t panic about population growth (positive or negative). I am much more concerned about the longer run implications of climate change and water availability.

OK, but the human-caused CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is equal to the number of humans times the amount per person. The amount of fresh water consumed by people is the number of humans times the amount per person. Likewise for fish killed, for air pollution, for forest destruction, for oil burned, etc. Cutting all those amounts per person in half is basically the same thing as cutting prosperity in half. So if we needed to cut all this in half for our great grandchildren, our choices might be a) to have them all live with half the prosperity, or b) to find a way to peacefully reduce the population of that generation in half, or c) some combination of the two. What sounds best to you?

I don’t understand your argument. Cutting all those per person amounts in half is not the same thing as cutting prosperity in half unless you assume technological change or productivity increases are not possible.

 

[bilby]

OK, but the human-caused CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is equal to the number of humans times the amount per person. The amount of fresh water consumed by people is the number of humans times the amount per person. Likewise for fish killed, for air pollution, for forest destruction, for oil burned, etc. Cutting all those amounts per person in half is basically the same thing as cutting prosperity in half.

No, it's not.

The amount of whale oil you consume is roughly zero; A century and a half ago, whale oil consumption per capita was huge.

By your logic, people today are far less prosperous than they were in the 1870s. But that's obviously not the case - so your logic must be broken.

CO₂ emissions per capita aren't directly linked to per capita energy use. A person in Poland, or Kentucky, or Queensland produces FAR more CO₂ per MJ than one in France, or Sweden or Ontario. You can reduce CO₂ emissions without reducing either per capita energy consumption or population size, just by moving from one energy source to another.

Consumption of a given resource is decoupled from prosperity by the possibility of using alternative resources. You can use mineral oil to replace whale oil. You can burn uranium to replace burning coal. You can recycle water, or desalinate seawater, to replace dependence on rainfall. You can eat proteins that don't come from fish. You can use visual displays instead of cutting timber for paper, and you can build with materials other than timber. You can make gasoline out of air at a nuclear power plant.

And resource depletion is not a thing, according to the first law of thermodynamics. Resources aren't depleted, they're dispersed, and gathering them back together requires energy. So as long as there's plenty of energy, there's plenty of everything else too.