We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[bilby]

Here is the representative curve of what I think we may be up against. And as I emphasize, all this changes if we come up with significantly better technology that we use or if we have a significant reduction in affluence levels. This suggests we may need a reduction in half.

That appears to be possible if we just commit to a voluntary reduction of one less birth per woman during her lifetime.

If we needed to do that, it would be very difficult to achieve, yes, but not impossible.

You are right; IF we assume that (for no reason you can articulate), carrying capacity is about to suddenly fall dramatically from a previously steady high level, THEN we would face disaster.

So what?

If my aunty had a penis, then she would be my uncle.

We should not make policy on the basis of entirely fictional future scenarios.

Not even if they are called "representative", rather than the more accurate "guesswork".

Not even if you present your guesswork in the form of a pretty graph.

What is it that happens in 2080 to dramatically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet?

How do you know that this is going to happen?

Why is your scenario more plausible than a continued steady state? Is a steady state even an accurate "hindcast" of what the carrying capacity has been since 1950?

A look at the numbers of people who died or suffered as a consequence of having insufficient access to resources, suggests that that blue line should have a very significant upward slope between 1950 and today; Steeper than the slope of the orange line. Which renders your prediction of a downslope in 2080 even less "representative" of any plausible future than it already is.

Claims that boil down to "if my predictions are correct, then they are correct, therefore we should assume them to be correct, and should make policy on that assumption" are just bad thinking.

 

[bilby]

Are you from some planet where the life-forms have immaterial souls whose character are formed by their contracausal free-willed choices and/or impressed into them by the grace of a divine heart-hardener?

No, I'm from a planet where the mapping of genotype to phenotype is very rarely a simple one-to-one relationship.

If you identify the gene whose presence causes an individual to have a specific instinct to do X, then calling that "the gene for X" would usually be massively misleading, because in almost all cases it will also be a gene required for Y, Z, A, B, C... and that must be absent or suppressed to get D, E, F, G... unless there's also one of several genes elsewhere in the genome... or some specific set of environmental influences... or... etc., etc.

A "Gene for X" is a rarity. Greagor Mendel was incredibly lucky to choose a test species that has a few clearly identifiable gene-phenotype pairs that are mostly clear cut "Genes for" traits. (He also likely fudged his figures to improve the match between his theory and his observations).

This is part of the reason why the "Gene for homosexuality" hasn't died out. Because the genetic basis for homosexuality (or for instincts of various kinds) isn't simple, and is deeply entangled with the genetic basis of a bunch of other traits, each with its own selection pressures.

"Genes for instincts", as required for Darwin's argument, aren't a thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, I'm from a planet where the mapping of genotype to phenotype is very rarely a simple one-to-one relationship.

If you identify the gene whose presence causes an individual to have a specific instinct to do X, then calling that "the gene for X" would usually be massively misleading, because in almost all cases it will also be a gene required for Y, Z, A, B, C... and that must be absent or suppressed to get D, E, F, G... unless there's also one of several genes elsewhere in the genome... or some specific set of environmental influences... or... etc., etc.

A "Gene for X" is a rarity. Greagor Mendel was incredibly lucky to choose a test species that has a few clearly identifiable gene-phenotype pairs that are mostly clear cut "Genes for" traits. (He also likely fudged his figures to improve the match between his theory and his observations).

This is part of the reason why the "Gene for homosexuality" hasn't died out. Because the genetic basis for homosexuality (or for instincts of various kinds) isn't simple, and is deeply entangled with the genetic basis of a bunch of other traits, each with its own selection pressures.

"Genes for instincts", as required for Darwin's argument, aren't a thing.

Well, in the first place, good god what a load of red herrings! Who the bejesus told you "gene for X" means "gene that causes X all by itself and causes nothing except X because the mapping of genotype to phenotype is a simple one-to-one relationship", let alone that Darwin's argument depends on any such counterfactual assumption? A "gene for X" is any allele that causes its bearer to have an elevated chance of an X phenotype compared to the competing alleles at the same site. If the same allele also causes Y and Z that doesn't mean it's not a gene for X; that means it's a gene for X and it's also a gene for Y and it's also a gene for Z. And sure, that means there's a possibility of the gene being selected for without X being selected for, like the well-known gene for sickle-cell anemia that's also a gene for malaria resistance; but that hardly means Darwin's argument doesn't work. My quote from his Wikipedia page doesn't even mention genes, just a heritable trait. There's nothing in your counterargument treating instincts differently from anything else, so if what you say were a substantive reason to claim genes for instincts aren't a thing it would equally show genes for digesting lactose aren't a thing, and yet, surprise surprise, lactose tolerance has somehow succeeded in evolving. So even if you could exhibit an allele that promotes desire to limit reproduction that's going to survive because it also prevents infant mortality, complex traits are influenced by many genes and an instinct to prefer a big family will arise when some other site on the genome mutates in some other way that makes the instinct more likely by some other mechanism that doesn't also kill us. "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

And in the second place, why are you even arguing with me? I was showing that the million-year time scale is a pointless distraction incapable of giving any support to Merle's case for direct anti-overpopulation measures. So his "Yes, I know you think that will be a long time from now, perhaps many millions of years. But regardless of the time frame, someday it will likely be a choice that needs to be made. Which would you choose?" argument is a poor one and he has the burden to prove it's a choice that needs to be made in the here and now to achieve short term benefits.

 

[bilby]

...

I was showing that the million-year time scale is a pointless distraction incapable of giving any support to Merle's case for direct anti-overpopulation measures. So his "Yes, I know you think that will be a long time from now, perhaps many millions of years. But regardless of the time frame, someday it will likely be a choice that needs to be made. Which would you choose?" argument is a poor one and he has the burden to prove it's a choice that needs to be made in the here and now to achieve short term benefits.

To be frank, even a time scale of a thousand years is probably not worth considering. A century or two, maybe three, is about as far as we are likely to be able to influence with any policy we might implement today.

It's highly dubious that any decision made by even the most influential people today would still be relevant a thousand years from now.

Circumstances will be different, technologies will be different, attitudes will be different, and frankly most people care little for the opinions of their deceased forebears. I don't often stop before making a decision to think "But what would my great grandfather have wanted me to do?".

A million years? There may not be any humans, at least, not as we would recognise them. We will plausibly have surviving descendants, but they may not all be the same species as each other, much less the same species as us.

If our policy choices today set up the best possible start in life for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, then the lives of subsequent generations can safely be left up to those guys. And even if they can't, there's very little we can do about it.

The ideals my grandfather fought for in WWII, and that his father fought for in WWI, are increasingly irrelevant; If my Great-Granddad had known that Europe in 2024 would be dominated by Germany, he would have been horrified, and he would have drawn a totally false set of conclusions about how this came to be - with the details of his mistaken assumptions being totally dependant on when he got the message.

The idea that we have the ability to create a future to our own designs, or even to shape the future by our decisions (good or bad) is generally overstated. We need to care, but we also need to be aware that our great-grandchildren will quite probably overrule our decisions (without consulting us), and that as they will be the people "on the spot" at that time, that they are almost certainly going to be right to do so.

Attempting to radically lower the human population over the next few generations isn't just a bad idea - it's an idea that would likely be reversed in short order even if we were foolish enough to adopt it.

 

[bilby]

And in the second place, why are you even arguing with me?

 

[Merle]

A look at the numbers of people who died or suffered as a consequence of having insufficient access to resources, suggests that that blue line should have a very significant upward slope between 1950 and today; Steeper than the slope of the orange line. Which renders your prediction of a downslope in 2080 even less "representative" of any plausible future than it already is.

You claim to have read my paper: https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/

If you had, you would know that it discusses this figure captioned, "Technology saves us". You could read my discussion of that topic if you wanted. I see no need to copy the entire content of my paper here because people are too lazy to click the link.

 

[Merle]

I want my epitaph to say, "At least he tried".

But it might say "He was distracted by an obsession with an irrelevance, and completely failed to act on things that were actually important".

Are you telling me that I do not ever act on anything that is important? Am I a complete failure? Ouch!

I write for a hobby. I write about many topics besides overshoot including life after death, self-esteem, prophecy, the Gospels, evolution, and happiness. I write because I think I am acting on things that are important. Is it all a big waste of time? Should I give up writing, and find another hobby?

 

[Merle]

...

I was showing that the million-year time scale is a pointless distraction incapable of giving any support to Merle's case for direct anti-overpopulation measures. So his "Yes, I know you think that will be a long time from now, perhaps many millions of years. But regardless of the time frame, someday it will likely be a choice that needs to be made. Which would you choose?" argument is a poor one and he has the burden to prove it's a choice that needs to be made in the here and now to achieve short term benefits.

To be frank, even a time scale of a thousand years is probably not worth considering. A century or two, maybe three, is about as far as we are likely to be able to influence with any policy we might implement today.

It's highly dubious that any decision made by even the most influential people today would still be relevant a thousand years from now.

Circumstances will be different, technologies will be different, attitudes will be different, and frankly most people care little for the opinions of their deceased forebears. I don't often stop before making a decision to think "But what would my great grandfather have wanted me to do?".

A million years? There may not be any humans, at least, not as we would recognise them. We will plausibly have surviving descendants, but they may not all be the same species as each other, much less the same species as us.

If our policy choices today set up the best possible start in life for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, then the lives of subsequent generations can safely be left up to those guys. And even if they can't, there's very little we can do about it.

The ideals my grandfather fought for in WWII, and that his father fought for in WWI, are increasingly irrelevant; If my Great-Granddad had known that Europe in 2024 would be dominated by Germany, he would have been horrified, and he would have drawn a totally false set of conclusions about how this came to be - with the details of his mistaken assumptions being totally dependant on when he got the message.

The idea that we have the ability to create a future to our own designs, or even to shape the future by our decisions (good or bad) is generally overstated. We need to care, but we also need to be aware that our great-grandchildren will quite probably overrule our decisions (without consulting us), and that as they will be the people "on the spot" at that time, that they are almost certainly going to be right to do so.

Attempting to radically lower the human population over the next few generations isn't just a bad idea - it's an idea that would likely be reversed in short order even if we were foolish enough to adopt it.

Rephrasing the question, imagine if the world needed to reduce to a sustainable population of say 1 billion people in 150 years, else billions would die. What should we do if that was true?

Let's give you four options. Which do you pick?

1. Extensive cooperative, voluntary birth reduction, doing the best we morally and practically can, realizing we have limits.
2. Allow starvation, deprivation, and resource wars to reduce the population.
3. Have a totalitarian world government force people to have fewer children.
4. Refuse to answer this hypothetical question.

If we are in that situation, I pick #1.

You write endlessly about my question, but all you seem to be saying is that your answer is #4.

Can I take it that this question is a stomper?

 

[pood]

...

Rephrasing the question, imagine if the world needed to reduce to a sustainable population of say 1 billion people in 150 years, else billions would die. What should we do if that was true?

The key word above is IF. “IF the world needed …” etc. Here’s another if — another big IF, granted — if the rest of the world stabilized to current European fertility rates, the human population of the world would be half of what it is today in 2200 and one-seventh of what it is today by 2300. Of course, that is not likely to happen, but it shows that this conversation is dominated by a whole big forest of IFs. We should also realize that a drastic reduction in human population, even if done voluntarily and especially if due to some catastrophe, itself presents a whole raft of potential problems.

 

[Merle]

You can look at my sources.

Oh, I have.

Paul Ehrlich famously proposed a formula for our impact on the planet: I=PAT.

Paul Ehrlich is also famous for his predictions:

In 1968, he predicted that 65 million Americans would starve to death in the 1980s...

Flapdoodle. If you had looked at my references, you would see that I don't even list Ehrlich as the lead writer in any of the works I cite. He is listed as a member of the writing team for one of the works, but not as the lead author. https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#References .

Do you seriously think you can discredit a paper by finding one contributing author of one of the works cited that wrote something wrong? With your attack strategy, you could discredit almost any scientific paper.

Being wrong is not magically turned into being right by quoting (or citing) a bunch of other people who were also wrong.

"I believe this, and I must be right because lots of other people, many of them highly regarded and respected, also believe this" isn't science; It's religion.

"I believe this, and I might be right because observing reality doesn't find any contradictions between my beliefs and those observations" is science.

Neither of these are statements I make. So why should I even address this ridiculous attempt to caricature what I write?

No, my paper is not based on religion. It is based on my research into the available scientific writings on the topic. Yes, there are many other works that I did not include. If you would like me to consider a paper that I have not listed, please recommend it.

"Scientific work has citations, therefore my provision of citations makes me right" mdaeworks as well as a Radar aerial from palm fronds.

That certainly is not what I say.

Your argument seems to condemn every paper in the scientific literature. If you find any work references a paper by another scientist, will you claim that this work is saying, "Scientific work has citations, therefore my provision of citations makes me right".

=====
Let me add that, when I say to look at my sources, I am suggesting that you read the sources I am using. I give links to everything in my references. Most are available online for free. Read those sources. I am not saying that you should look at the people whose works I cited, and see if you can dredge up any dirt on them as though that would discredit anything I wrote.

 

[Merle]

The key word above is IF. “IF the world needed …” etc. Here’s another if — another big IF, granted — if the rest of the world stabilized to current European fertility rates, the human population of the world would be half of what it is today in 2200 and one-seventh of what it is today by 2300. Of course, that is not likely to happen, but it shows that this conversation is dominated by a whole big forest of IFs. We should also realize that a drastic reduction in human population, even if done voluntarily and especially if due to some catastrophe, itself presents a whole raft of potential problems.

It's complicated. Yes, I agree. That is why I spend a considerable portion of my work -- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ -- discussing the different fertility rates in different countries. But for some reason, people refuse to read what I write, and then choose to inform me about the things that I wrote.

Am I wasting my time here?

 

[pood]

...

I

Let's give you four options. Which do you pick?

1. Extensive cooperative, voluntary birth reduction, doing the best we morally and practically can, realizing we have limits.
2. Allow starvation, deprivation, and resource wars to reduce the population.
3. Have a totalitarian world government force people to have fewer children.
4. Refuse to answer this hypothetical question.

If we are in that situation, I pick #1.

But No. 1 is already being done, though not universally. To No 1. I would add worldwide education in family planning and access to reliable birth control, but unfortunately this is often resisted, mainly for the usual stupid religious reasons. As has been noted in this thread, human population growth even under current circumstance, without any need for options 3 or 4, is on track to level off in this century and then decline. Of course, this brings its own problems. With European fertility at 1.5, that is below replacement rate. As a result, Europe needs immigrants, and most of those are coming from Africa and Muslim countries, which predictably precipitates a shit fit among large swathes of the nationalistic, xenophobic elements of the right wing, which is a problem there as it is in the U.S., with its huge element of MAGA-tards.

 

[pood]

A noted too, declining populations bring their own problems, some of which will be severe. Japan’s current population is in decline, and stands around 124 million. Estimates show that unless trends change, the population will sink to only 70 million by 2060. Of course Japan, with the declining birth rates typically found in advanced industrial countries, also notoriously resists immigration.

 

[steve_bank]

1. Extensive cooperative, voluntary birth reduction, doing the best we morally and practically can, realizing we have limits.
2. Allow starvation, deprivation, and resource wars to reduce the population.
3. Have a totalitarian world government force people to have fewer children.
4. Refuse to answer this hypothetical question.

1. This all may be the best us humans as we are can do morally and practically. Russian and Chinese communism thought they could create a just system by declaring it,
2. The historical result of conflict, local climate change, and overuse of resources.
3. China tries it and it backfired, Couples killed female babies and tued again for a male. Led to a ]n imabalce between males and females. Now China is now promoting population growth, it has to sipprt an aging population.

Natural selection, if or genetic inheritance does not enable us to solve the problems humans will decline or die out. A natural balance will be returned.

 

[Merle]

As has been noted in this thread, human population growth even under current circumstance, without any need for options 3 or 4, is on track to level off in this century and then decline.

Which completely evades the question. The question was not asking what we needed to do to level off the population and then begin a slight decline. The question dealt with what we needed to do if we needed to reduce to 1 billion people in 150 years.

Yes, of course, many of the things I suggested are being done to some extant now. But we are not, for instance, telling people that there is an urgent need to reduce population. We are not implementing tax policies (such as repeal of the tax deduction for children born after 2025). We are not active creating social security networks in underdeveloped countries so they do not need to rely on a large family as a retirement.

So no, I do not think we are doing all that we can morally and practically do to voluntarily reduce the number of births.

 

[bilby]

we are not, for instance, telling people that there is an urgent need to reduce population

That's because THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO REDUCE POPULATION.

That you can imagine a graph with some arbitrarily drawn lines on it does NOT constitute evidence of anything.

 

[pood]

As has been noted in this thread, human population growth even under current circumstance, without any need for options 3 or 4, is on track to level off in this century and then decline.

Which completely evades the question. The question was not asking what we needed to do to level off the population and then begin a slight decline. The question dealt with what we needed to do if we needed to reduce to 1 billion people in 150 years.

It’s not evading the question. I pointed out the problem inherent in the question — the big word IF.

Given the fact that population growth is in fact leveling off and poised for decline, your hypothetical question is moot.

It seems to me better questions involve things I pointed out — Japan‘s rapid population decline, for instance, and the social impact of that, and Europe’s decline, and their problems associated with the influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that they actually need, but which so many are actively resisting. The biggest problem I think we face — climate change — is going to disproportionately affect poorer, southern tier countries, driving waves of climate refugees north over time.

 

[unapologetic]

Reality doesn't care who is or is not convinced by it.

True. so STFU. Your opinions are just as worthless as mine.

 

[unapologetic]

I don't know who said this:
There are no genes for desired family size;

Perhaps it is that elusive 'gay gene'.
OTOH, there would be a genetic component to the number of embryos per litter.
Fertility itself can be influenced by environment.

 

[unapologetic]

And in the second place, why are you even arguing with me?

View attachment 45218

This is ironic, coming from you.