• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Too many people?

Merle said:
Politesse said:
That's because you've yet to present any....
Click to expand...
Try:


and

www.frontiersin.org

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org
Click to expand...
Why are you linking this article? It's a fine article for what it is, but it doesn't say anything about "overpopulation". The paper is actually extremely clear about what variables they are tracking, and "number of babies" is not among them. Are you trying to criticize these authors for not being aware of your gospel?
 
Politesse said:
Merle said:
Politesse said:
That's because you've yet to present any....
Click to expand...
Try:


and

www.frontiersin.org

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org
Click to expand...
Why are you linking this article? It's a fine article for what it is, but it doesn't say anything about "overpopulation". The paper is actually extremely clear about what variables they are tracking, and "number of babies" is not among them. Are you trying to criticize these authors for not being aware of your gospel?
Click to expand...
I does mention population growth as a problem, though:

We summarize the state of the natural world in stark form here to help clarify the gravity of the human predicament. We also outline likely future trends in biodiversity decline (Díaz et al., 2019), climate disruption (Ripple et al., 2020), and human consumption and population growth to demonstrate the near certainty that these problems will worsen over the coming decades...
Click to expand...
I could have misunderstood your post, and at any rate, I am not in the OP's corner on this. I agree with bilby's position.

But I do think Merle has been lucid and decent and I am sure he is not advocating anything like genocide.
 
laughing dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
That could well be true.

So if the Earth's carrying capacity is indeed under 2 billion, as six scientific papers conclude, then we have gotten ourselves into somewhat of a dilemma, yes?
 
Politesse said:
Why are you linking this article? It's a fine article for what it is, but it doesn't say anything about "overpopulation".
Click to expand...
Read the section titled "Ecological Overshoot: Population Size and Overconsumption".
 
Merle said:
Even if my motives were bad--they are not--that would in no case diminish the strong scientific case that the population is in overshoot.
Click to expand...
Where's the evidence for this alleged "strong scientific case"?

We have reduced rates of hunger and famine; We still find it far cheaper to obtain resources from mining than from recycling; We have clear examples of carbon dioxide emissions being completely decoupled from both population and wealth levels.

Where's the strong scientific evidence that makes a strong scientific case? All I see is increasingly strong declarations of faith, many of which are demonstrably untrue. Most of the people who are concerned about population growth base their concern on the impossibility of sustained growth, which is a pointless result in an environment where sustained growth is clearly not going to happen anyway.

Population is stabilising. It will likely be around ten billion people at its peak; Maybe we should be pessimistic and say twelve billion. What's the evidence (sorry, the strong scientific evidence) that this number isn't easily sustainable for our planet for the indefinite future - at least until the evolution of our Sun makes it impossible for any humans to live on Earth at all.
 
Merle said:
There is a strong basis of peer-reviewed papers that the carrying capacity is under 8 billion people. Many peer reviewed studies put it under 4 billion. See https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support
Click to expand...
That's not how science works; We don't just take a headcount of the number of published papers that reach a particular conclusion.

It's fairly noticeable that there are a very wide range of estimates for carrying capacity, and that the vast majority are that it's "about the number of people currently alive, or perhaps as many as twice that", with a handful of outliers that say it's far lower, or far higher.

Many of the low estimates dramatically discount the possibility of recycling materials, and/or assume that energy and resources will become increasingly difficult to obtain sustainably. Neither of these assumptions stands up to scrutiny.

Worse yet, the low estimates are typically variations on the theme of the "no breakfast fallacy"; They are founded in a broken understanding of the meaning of "resource" and "reserve" as used by the mining industry.

How unpleasant life will become due to "population pressure" is entirely dependent upon how much pushback there is against the provision of cheap clean energy from nuclear fission.

We don't have a population problem; We have a religion problem - people widely believe that nuclear fission is dangerous, polluting, and/or expensive; That intermittent low-density renewables can replace fossil fuels; and that the current push for renewables is due to their effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions, rather than their effectiveness in enriching fossil fuel corporations. All three beliefs are nonsense and are demonstrably untrue.
 
Merle said:
laughing dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
That could well be true.

So if the Earth's carrying capacity is indeed under 2 billion, as six scientific papers conclude, then we have gotten ourselves into somewhat of a dilemma, yes?
Click to expand...
Six out of sixty five.

Even if we accepted your absurd premise that polling the number of papers making a particular estimate is a sensible methodology, we should conclude that those six papers are wrong, as there are fifty nine papers in your linked article that say it's more than two billion, and thirty two that say it's more than sixteen billion (which is a significant number more than the population is ever likely to be; Certainly it's more than it will be without a major shift in the observed trends in fertility rates).

When 33/65 papers say there's a problem, and 32/65 say there's not, it's hard to be alarmed even if we take your bizarre approach of counting numbers of papers without examining their contents.
 
bilby said:
Six out of sixty five.

Even if we accepted your absurd premise that polling the number of papers making a particular estimate is a sensible methodology, we should conclude that those six papers are wrong, as there are fifty nine papers in your linked article that say it's more than two billion, and thirty two that say it's more than sixteen billion (which is a significant number more than the population is ever likely to be; Certainly it's more than it will be without a major shift in the observed trends in fertility rates).

When 33/65 papers say there's a problem, and 32/65 say there's not, it's hard to be alarmed even if we take your bizarre approach of counting numbers of papers without examining their contents.
Click to expand...
Oh, for crying out loud. No, we do not simply poll the number of papers.

I have recommended this file at least once on this thread: https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf . No, it does not simply count papers. Rather, it takes a survey of the field and analyzes the methods used. It says that many of the papers that came up with a high carrying capacity were looking at a single factor. Other papers take a more complicated systems approach, and looks at many factors. I understand these tend to come out with a lower number.

Over half of those papers say the Earth's carrying capacity is less than or equal to 8 billion people. Six say it is less than or equal to two billion people. To those of us here that love science, that should at least raise our eyebrows, if nothing more.

Do I know what the carrying capacity is? No! Read the OP, for crying out loud. I am asking. I have heard different sources use a two billion person limit. Is that the best available number? Or should we use something else? I am not an expert in the field, but I thought it would be a good idea to ask.

Do scientists know what the carrying capacity is? No! There are far too many factors involved. All we can do is put our collective minds together and do our best job of figuring out what we are up against.

Yogi Berra could have told us: Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

Would someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with asking questions? I have asked multiple questions in the opening post. I was expecting respectful debate. Instead of that I find people running around in terror that a person is here asking questions about population, he must be a eugenicist! Why in the hell can't we just approach these difficult questions with honesty and mutual respect? Is that asking too much?
 
Merle said:
Why in the hell can't we just approach these difficult questions with honesty and mutual respect? Is that asking too much?
Click to expand...
Because there's a vast and ignoble history of people asking these questions, and moving rapidly on to genocidal totalitarianism.

You couldn't start a thread "Just Asking Questions" about why so many bankers are Jewish, and whether that's a concern, either. And for very similar reasons.
 
bilby said:
Population is stabilising. It will likely be around ten billion people at its peak; Maybe we should be pessimistic and say twelve billion. What's the evidence (sorry, the strong scientific evidence) that this number isn't easily sustainable for our planet for the indefinite future - at least until the evolution of our Sun makes it impossible for any humans to live on Earth at all.
Click to expand...
Once again, yes, population numbers are no longer increasing exponentially. It is more like a slow linear rise. And there is a lot of hope that it will settle out below 12 billion people. Nobody knows. That all depends on who loves who when in the next 30 years and what sort of protection they use. I cannot foresee what that will be. But yes, the case can be made that it will level off below 12 billion people. But nobody knows.

Again, the concern is not so much that it is still rising, but that it may be above the long term carrying capacity of the Earth. Our current path is not sustainable. We drain resources, release CO2, pollute rivers, and destroy diversity of life far greater than the Earth can restore itself. Per the link I sent you above, there are at least 9 important "wedges" where we are causing parameters in the Earth to go in the wrong direction. That cannot continue. Some time we will be forced to cut back to sustainable levels. Yes, we can all hope that technology will increase to the point where we can live with today's population and prosperity with the Earth keeping up with us. But unfortunately, even with technology increases, we keep falling behind. The Earth is not keeping up.

Below is a quick sketch of the problem made in paint. The black line represents the exponential rise in population in the last 200 years. The line has begun to level off. The fuzzy red line represents the long term carrying capacity of the Earth. That is the level of population such that we can maintain a decent standard of living with the Earth keeping up with our demand upon it. Many claim that we are well above that line. That is because we are relying on non-renewable resources, and we are taking advantage of the large capacity of the Earth to absorb our junk. But that is temporary. Sometime in the future, as the junk piles up, we run into the blue line. We must get down below the red and blue lines, or nature will do it for us. It's like doing the limbo.

Where are those lines? Nobody really knows. If the red line is far above today's population, no problem. Let's just level off population somewhere below the red line. All is well.

And if the blue line is millions of years in the future, we might say that is not our concern. Let our descendants millions of years from now deal with that. Eat, drink, and be merry.

But many scientists are concerned that these limits are very serious. (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity )

The red and blue lines are both shown fuzzy. That is because nobody knows exactly where they are.

Getting back to the opening post, it basically asks two questions: Where is the red line? Where is the blue line?


population.jpg
 
bilby said:
Merle said:
Why in the hell can't we just approach these difficult questions with honesty and mutual respect? Is that asking too much?
Click to expand...
Because there's a vast and ignoble history of people asking these questions, and moving rapidly on to genocidal totalitarianism.

You couldn't start a thread "Just Asking Questions" about why so many bankers are Jewish, and whether that's a concern, either. And for very similar reasons.
Click to expand...
I am not asking questions about Jewish Bankers.

I am asking questions about population. But my motive for asking is not some desire to eliminate people. I love people. I wish we could fill the world with billions more.

Many scientists tell me we are bumping into limits. If what they say is true, then good people like you and I ought to be asking how bad that problem is, and what we can do about it in a way that is fair, moral and just. Nothing that I say here should in any sense be taken as meaning we should target peoples of any race, nationality, etc.
 
bilby said:
You couldn't start a thread "Just Asking Questions" about why so many bankers are Jewish, and whether that's a concern, either. And for very similar reasons.
Click to expand...
I understand that people have misunderstood the opening post. I wish I could go back and clarify it. I can't. And so I have done the next best thing. I have repeatedly emphasized that I am not saying the things that are misrepresented of me here.

Misunderstanding something posted here is excusable. It happens all the time.

Repeatedly stating the same false representations over and over, when the person has emphatically and clearly said he is not saying what you claim is inexcusable. It is wrong.
 
Merle said:
bilby said:
Merle said:
Why in the hell can't we just approach these difficult questions with honesty and mutual respect? Is that asking too much?
Click to expand...
Because there's a vast and ignoble history of people asking these questions, and moving rapidly on to genocidal totalitarianism.

You couldn't start a thread "Just Asking Questions" about why so many bankers are Jewish, and whether that's a concern, either. And for very similar reasons.
Click to expand...
I am not asking questions about Jewish Bankers.

I am asking questions about population. But my motive for asking is not some desire to eliminate people. I love people. I wish we could fill the world with billions more.

Many scientists tell me we are bumping into limits. If what they say is true, then good people like you and I ought to be asking how bad that problem is, and what we can do about it in a way that is fair, moral and just. Nothing that I say here should in any sense be taken as meaning we should target peoples of any race, nationality, etc.
Click to expand...
Like questions about Jewish bankers, questions about the population limits in the context of what is "fair, moral, and just" was discussed WAY upthread.

I discussed both the fuzzy borders of just and a bunch of stuff clearly inside the lines.

(Just) Asking Questions is the issue.

People, when faced with ANY zero sum game to which they did not ask to be players, will move towards preserving the closest aspects of "self" first.

They will secure their nation over their world. And this is nationalism.

They will secure their cultural community over their nation.

They will secure their race, through sect; religious sects divide on the basis of which peolple look similar, over their cultural community.

They will secure their family over their religion.

Each of these is them being solipsistic in a different way, against a different self, and given the current state of humanity, that is going to keep happening by in large.

We keep trying to impart on you that right now, we know generally where the border is. We have discussed this border with you many times and you keep asking the question.

The more times we point to the border and why it exists, the more of the benefit of doubt you lose that the question is being asked honestly.

We told you where the border lies. If you wish to debate the border, that starts where the border has been drawn.

I love the world and all the people in it. I would not add more, but I don't have to.

There is wide agreement that the most fair, moral, and just thing is around the border of "doing things that distract people from starting or enabling them to avoid starting a family".

Even at the point of paying people to not or encouraging them to not, there's the question of what demographic ends up most heavily targeted. The perception of a demographic group being targeted for reduction leads to direct conflict because it's the motivator for open declaration of "enemies" in the zero sum game.

Start at the border of "distracting and enabling" and see if you can find something, anything, beyond that. Poke carefully from the border.
 
Merle said:
Again, the concern is not so much that it is still rising, but that it may be above the long term carrying capacity of the Earth.
Click to expand...
OK, so you are concerned.

What do you want to do about it?

What do you want others to do about it?

I'm concerned that the Sun might go nova in the next ten years. What, exactly, would you recommend to assuage my concern in this matter?

Because as far as I can tell, being concerned about something that a) You can't do a single thing to influence, and b) Might well not happen at all, is pure paranoia with no value whatsoever to anyone.
 
bilby said:
I'm concerned that the Sun might go nova in the next ten years.
Click to expand...
I’m more concerned that Merle might go nova in the next ten minutes! Wish he would clarify his intent /meaning rather than keep vexing about being misunderstood.
 
Let u hope he does not. His mass, converted to energy would likely wipe us all out, but then the problem would be solved, No people, no problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom