We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Loren Pechtel]

1) I place the value in people-years, not in years. If a crash is inevitable, 10 billion for 150 years is superior to 1 billion for 1000 years.

2) The sustainable level is early stone age with a sub-million population. We have already taken all the easy-to-get resources, a low-tech society would already be on their way to a crash. The existing stuff will last for a while but it will wear away eventually.

And it appears that you think the policy that will maximize the total number of people-years is to have a population above current levels until supplies run out, then it all comes crashing down and there are less than one million people left.

I don't think a million will actually happen--the fight over declining resources will probably do us in. It doesn't really matter, though--they are both catastrophic. You accept that we eventually go down and are after kicking the can as far as possible--but that approach ensures that we will crash. We are looking to avoid the crash entirely.

And you appear to say that could happen in decades or a few centuries.

It seems to me that this policy causes immense unnecessary human suffering. If we had time to react by each averaging one less child then we are currently planning on, then we could begin reducing that population before we get there. If we reduce to two billion people over the next 150 years, I would think we could still live at a better standard than we would live at with 10 billion people. But even if the standard of living went down, it would greatly extend the time until the crash occurs, and make the crash much more tolerable when it happens. We might have time to even do a controlled descent to 1 million if we needed do I think we owe this to our descendants.

If we are recklessly driving into the wall at full speed, knowing that it is our descendants, not us, who will be in the car when it crashes, that does not seem like a humanitarian thing to do.

We are trying to avoid the crash, not minimize it.

 

[Merle]

Can you please recommend "an articulable, navigable path for humanity to tread" in light of what we have been discussing here?

No. I recognize the “problem” as one of human nature, and therefore intractable.
I am as capable as you are of providing lists of un-doable things that, if done, would mitigate our effects.

That is the basic "doomster" view, which is becoming quite popular. We are doomed. It would have been nice if we had kept this planet livable. We haven't. Get over it.

See, for instance, https://jembendell.com/ .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another problem of overpopulation is epidemics and pandemics, which spread due to high population densities.

Sure. A pandemic couldn't have occurred in (for example) the fourteenth century, when world population was just 440 million.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

"X is more likely with high populations" is equivalent to "X never happens with lower populations."

Got it. Is this novel conclusion submitted to a math journal or a logic journal? Can I have a pre-print please?

Actually, pandemics can be worse with lower tech. It burns out in a dense population, it continues when it moves slowly.

 

[Merle]

We are trying to avoid the crash, not minimize it.

I also would like to avoid the crash. I listed the best plan I can think of to avoid a fatal crash, or at least delay it for a few thousand years.

Can you please give us a plan that you think would avoid a crash if followed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More to the point, why do you think the sustainable level is early stone age with a sub-million population? What was unsustainable about the ten-odd million in the late stone age, other than our tendency to invent stuff and figure out how to increase the carrying capacity? If you mean that leads to overloading and a crash, Neolithic societies crashed right and left for thousands of years but it's never worldwide all at once. If metals ever really become unavailable then the long-term steady state is a mix of subsistence agricultural societies on the way up and on the way down, and that counts as sustainable overall. The world is never going back to just a million hunter-gatherers.

Past early stone age relies on mining. Very minor mining, but mining.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are trying to avoid the crash, not minimize it.

I also would like to avoid the crash. I listed the best plan I can think of to avoid a fatal crash, or at least delay it for a few thousand years.

Can you please give us a plan that you think would avoid a crash if followed?

We have no certain plan, any solution depends on developing technology. A high risk path--but better than the path of certain destruction that you propose.

 

[bilby]

As a consumer society, aren't we encouraged to spend on goods and services, take holidays, buy new cars, new appliances, phones and gadgets?

Yes.

Aren't we also encouraged to do these things in "environmentally friendly" ways?

Clearly there's a lot of difference between individuals in their environmental impact. It's therefore ridiculous to imply that you can measure the environmental impact of humanity by simply counting noses; Or that you can limit our environmental impact by simply limiting our population.

 

[Elixir]

We have no certain plan

We don’t even know what would distinguish a decline from a crash. Most people can’t tell climate from weather, and they don’t miss sights and sounds that were gone before they arrived.

When I found out as a child how recently Thylacines had been exterminated, a seed of fury took root, against the cruelty and greed of humans. I’m still pissed about never getting to even see one. That was a crash to me at the time.
Difficult though that was, I never suspected the oceans could get so fished out in my lifetime. I haven’t been to all points, but where I have …

 

[bilby]

We can resolve this by attacking each specific problem by either reducing our consumption per person or finding technical solution to live as we do with less impact.

Yes. Yes we can. And we must. Because doing more to reduce population than has already been done is unacceptable.

Let me be clear. I am in no sense advocating suicide or genocide. Human life is a marvel. We should not be snuffing it out. That must be off the table.

Neither am I advocating forced birth control. I see no way we could do that in a way that is fair and effective. And we must confine our efforts to things that are fair and effective. First do no harm. Forced birth control is out.

So, you agree with me. Population controls are not an option; The only viable solutions are to employ technological means to let however many people we have, live comfortable lives, without destroying the environment on which they depend.

To achieve this, we need to persuade politicians and influencers to forget about population, as it's the untouchable element of the problem, and to concentrate instead on ways to make harmful activities undesirable (for example by heavily taxing activities that currently externalise costs onto the environment); Or to promote the least harmful ways of doing things over the more harmful alternatives (for example by replacing other forms of electricity generation with nuclear power).

 

[Merle]

We are trying to avoid the crash, not minimize it.

I also would like to avoid the crash. I listed the best plan I can think of to avoid a fatal crash, or at least delay it for a few thousand years.

Can you please give us a plan that you think would avoid a crash if followed?

We have no certain plan, any solution depends on developing technology. A high risk path--but better than the path of certain destruction that you propose.

Again, here is the plan summary I give at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/: "So, what do we do? Most of the above. First, we need to accept that whatever comes, it is what it is, and make the most of it. And we must always make room for hope, to always hold out that we will make the most of what comes. But that hope should not include denial and should not come at the expense of a realistic preparation for what may come. And yes, societies need to include nuclear reactors, windmills, solar panels, batteries, and hopefully many other innovative technologies that are around the corner. And we could tell people that, for each decision not to have another child, that is one less person that needs to be supported on this overfilled lifeboat, Earth. We could actively ask for people to reduce birthrates, especially in rich countries. And of course, where we can individually or collectively cut back our impact to preserve the planet, let’s do so."

Can you please explain to me how you know that following this plan will lead to certain destruction?

 

[Merle]

As a consumer society, aren't we encouraged to spend on goods and services, take holidays, buy new cars, new appliances, phones and gadgets?

Yes.

Aren't we also encouraged to do these things in "environmentally friendly" ways?

Clearly there's a lot of difference between individuals in their environmental impact. It's therefore ridiculous to imply that you can measure the environmental impact of humanity by simply counting noses; Or that you can limit our environmental impact by simply limiting our population.

And it is also ridiculous to suggest that we can measure our environmental impact by how fast we can count to 10.

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses, and nobody that suggests that we can measure our environmental impact by how fast we can count to 10, why even bring it up?

Wouldn't it be better to address what people are actually saying?

 

[Merle]

We can resolve this by attacking each specific problem by either reducing our consumption per person or finding technical solution to live as we do with less impact.

Yes. Yes we can. And we must. Because doing more to reduce population than has already been done is unacceptable.

Why is doing more to reduce population unacceptable?

 

[Merle]

So, you agree with me. Population controls are not an option; The only viable solutions are to employ technological means to let however many people we have, live comfortable lives, without destroying the environment on which they depend.

No, I think you already know that I don't think that the only viable solutions are to employ technological means.

So why even bother to state things that you must surely know are false?

I have emphasized that we need to do more than just make better use of current and future technological solutions. We should also consider ways to address the high affluence of the rich; we should actively be encouraging fewer children; and we should be making it easier for women worldwide to reduce the number of children they give birth to if they so choose. I have emphasized these things in the paper I keep mentioning-- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ -- and throughout this thread.

So, I think even you will agree that, if I have emphasized these things repeatedly, and you refuse to acknowledge what I say, but continue to post false statements about what I say, that there is nothing we can do to change what you post. You will continue to falsely report what other people are posting here. Yes?

 

[DBT]

As a consumer society, aren't we encouraged to spend on goods and services, take holidays, buy new cars, new appliances, phones and gadgets?

Yes.

Aren't we also encouraged to do these things in "environmentally friendly" ways?

Clearly there's a lot of difference between individuals in their environmental impact. It's therefore ridiculous to imply that you can measure the environmental impact of humanity by simply counting noses; Or that you can limit our environmental impact by simply limiting our population.

Perhaps consumerism has very little in the way of being 'environmentaly friendly.' That consumerism, by its very nature, is not friendly to the environment and catch phrases like 'environmentaly friendly' and 'sustainable growth' are feel good selling points with little substance, where business and profit is the driver and the environment and its ecosystems come second.

 

[bilby]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

 

[bilby]

We can resolve this by attacking each specific problem by either reducing our consumption per person or finding technical solution to live as we do with less impact.

Yes. Yes we can. And we must. Because doing more to reduce population than has already been done is unacceptable.

Why is doing more to reduce population unacceptable?

Ask this guy:

Let me be clear. I am in no sense advocating suicide or genocide. Human life is a marvel. We should not be snuffing it out. That must be off the table.

Neither am I advocating forced birth control. I see no way we could do that in a way that is fair and effective. And we must confine our efforts to things that are fair and effective. First do no harm. Forced birth control is out.

 

[bilby]

So why even bother to state things that you must surely know are false?

Because they follow logically from what you are saying, and I am highlighting the fact that you are wrong.

You know that the necessary conclusions from your claims are false; Why do you fail to conclude the obvious - that your claims themselves must, therefore, be false?

 

[bilby]

I have emphasized that we need to do more than just make better use of current and future technological solutions.

OK.

We should also consider ways to address the high affluence of the rich;

Why? How, specifically, would this help the environment?

Are you planning to make people wealthier, so that they can more easily afford to pay a carbon tax, or to pay to have their garbage recycled?

Or are you planning to make people poorer, on the assumption that this will lead to less environmental damage? If so, you might want to consider this post, by somebody who strongly disagrees with that assumption:

I've cited that Philippines (along with other poor SE Asia countries) is the worst polluter of plastics in the world. Air and water quality is worse in Africa than anywhere else IIRC. The rich do NOT drink ten times as much water as the poor, nor do they eat ten times as much cereal.

The Ganges River is sometimes mentioned as the most polluted river in the world. Guess what? The Ganges is located in a poor country with a high population. Several other high-population low-income Asian countries have polluted rivers.

the Citarum River in Indonesia is so polluted that before you see it, you will smell it. This odor is described as "dense" and "rubbish rotting in hot sun mixed in with an acrid tone of chemical waste." For the approximate 9 million people who live close by, they always have to be concerned about their health.

In parts of the Citarum River you cannot see the water!

Kenya's Nairobi River is very polluted -- was this caused by billionaires jetting to Switzerland?

Perhaps affluence has fuck-all to do with the amount of environmental degradation we cause. Or perhaps the relationship is tbe reverse of what you claim - maybe affluence is beneficial for the environment.

we should actively be encouraging fewer children;

No. It is immoral to want to control other people's behaviour.

and we should be making it easier for women worldwide to reduce the number of children they give birth to if they so choose.

We are. And have been for decades. This is done and dusted. To continue to demand the implementation of something after it has been implemented is literally insane.

 

[bilby]

You will continue to falsely report what other people are posting here. Yes?

No. And your suggestion that I have done so is not only false and insulting, but skirts very close to being a breach of the forum rules.

Highlighting flaws in your logic is NOT false reporting.

 

[bilby]

As a consumer society, aren't we encouraged to spend on goods and services, take holidays, buy new cars, new appliances, phones and gadgets?

Yes.

Aren't we also encouraged to do these things in "environmentally friendly" ways?

Clearly there's a lot of difference between individuals in their environmental impact. It's therefore ridiculous to imply that you can measure the environmental impact of humanity by simply counting noses; Or that you can limit our environmental impact by simply limiting our population.

Perhaps consumerism has very little in the way of being 'environmentaly friendly.' That consumerism, by its very nature, is not friendly to the environment and catch phrases like 'environmentaly friendly' and 'sustainable growth' are feel good selling points with little substance, where business and profit is the driver and the environment and its ecosystems come second.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps not.

Buying solar panels for your house is consumerism. Is it also environmentally friendly? Maybe, maybe not.