We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[DBT]

transitioning into a steady state economy and population equilibrium, where birth rate equals death rate and we maintain a stable population and economy. We should have worked to achieve this decades ago.

We worked very effectively to achieve this centuries ago.

But there was a problem - despite the best efforts of aristocrats and clergymen, prople would keep getting dangerous ideas.

Like "Why should I do the same job as my father and grandfather before me, and just accept that I will never do any better than they did?"; or "What if we made a chimney out of bricks, so we could have the fire against the wall, rather than in the centre of the house?"; or "I wonder whether there's a way to improve the mechanism of our family's mill"; or "I wonder if there's any gold in this stream"; or "Perhaps we could make glass into flat sheets and use that to stop the draughts coming in through the windows, while still letting in daylight"; or "What if dying for my King isn't a noble and honorable thing, but just a way for him to stay rich while my brothers are maimed or killed?"

Life in Medieval Europe was much as you describe, for several centuries.

But there's a reason why "medieval" isn't used as a modern epithet for "kind", or "joyous", or "innovative".

A steady-state economy requires brutality to hold back any effort to change anything. Because people have an annoying tendency to want to improve their lives, even when their lords and masters say "no", and their priests and bishops tell them it's contrary to God's will.

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

 

[Merle]

To those people here that are so concerned about the inconveniences of having a larger retired/working-age ratio, think about what the collapse of civilization means.

Although we are highly resourceful, especially when it comes to increasing profits, we have foolishly sacrificed long-term results for short-term gains. We ended up overplaying our hand, despite strong evidence that this could not possibly end well. Sure, we will continue to find ways to maintain our energy and material output — until we no longer can. Technology can and will help, but it is unable to reverse the rapid decline of ore grades and energy returns, and it comes at a cost.

In fact, we are accelerating towards a point of diminishing returns as we approach geo-physical limits. Soon it will no longer matter how much effort we put into solving the “problem” of mineral or fossil fuel depletion, the costs will rapidly outgrow all the potential benefits we hope to gain. Such predicaments start very slowly and reluctantly, swinging back and forth between sustained operations and crisis mode; only to tip over somewhat later, and accelerate into an unending series of emergencies lasting multiple decades. If you think that the world has went crazy and about to go even crazier as a result, you are not entirely mistaken. You are witnessing the collapse of modernity, already. ()

One could argue that no solution that was proposed here is sufficient. Fair enough. But I have seen nothing here that proves that getting together to try to solve or mitigate the problem will be worse than letting a natural collapse that kills 6 billion people happen while we do nothing (https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/09/18/Climate-Crisis-Wipe-Out/).

 

[Swammerdami]

Life in Medieval Europe was much as you describe, for several centuries.

But there's a reason why "medieval" isn't used as a modern epithet for "kind", or "joyous", or "innovative"..

When you continually resort to cherry-picking, caricature and straw men, are you not afraid some will think that's all you got?
Why stop at "Medieval Europe"? Why not go for broke with "Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge"?

For nearly three hundred years Britain, reconciled to the Roman system, enjoyed in many respects the happiest, most comfortable, and most enlightened times its inhabitants have ever had. In this period, almost equal to that which separates us from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, well-to-do persons in Britain lived better than they ever did until late Victorian times. From the year 400 till the year 1900 no one had central heating and very few had hot baths. A wealthy British-Roman citizen building a country house regarded the hypocaust which warmed it as indispensable. For fifteen hundred years his descendants lived in the cold of unheated dwellings, mitigated by occasional roastings at gigantic wasteful fires. Even now a smaller proportion of the whole population dwells in centrally heated houses than in those ancient days. As for baths, they were completely lost till the middle of the nineteenth century. In all this long, bleak intervening gap cold and dirt clung to the most fortunate and highest in the land.

 

[bigfield]

You seem to be confusing economic hardship and collapse. Having more retired people per working age person is a hardship. It is not the same thing as collapse.

Depends on how it's managed. At the moment only a few countries are experiencing such low fertility rates and are only just starting to experience population decline. They can manage this by accepting migrants to stabilise the labour force and by relying on a strong export market, but they can't do either of those things if every other country is experiencing the same demographic crisis.

But let's say the hardship of having more retired people per working age person is too big to bear. Then what do you suggest? Do we just put our heads in the sand?

I'd suggest fixing the actual problems we're facing instead of pretending that we can fix our problems with a population nosedise.

"Fundamentally, we need to talk about a future of less instead of a future of more." ( Nikiforuk, 2023). If we need to talk about a future with less, how do we do that? Can we really expect all the rich to scale back? In what way would that be better for the economy than reducing births?

I expect the rich to act in their own myopic self-interest. We should be making companies (and therefore their customers) pay for externalities such as environmental damage, and we should be legislating specific requirements for products to be more sustainable.

 

[bigfield]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

 

[Elixir]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

 

[DBT]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?

 

[DBT]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

We can't keep increasing productivity in perpetuity.

 

[bigfield]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

We can't keep increasing productivity in perpetuity.

Yes we can. Are you suggesting that we'll reach a point where we can no longer make advances in technology and ways of working?

 

[bigfield]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?

How about more efficient houses and smarter transit systems inatead of just more of the same old crap?

 

[Merle]

We should be making companies (and therefore their customers) pay for externalities such as environmental damage, and we should be legislating specific requirements for products to be more sustainable.

In other words, scientists who warn of overshoot are full of bologna?

From my website:

Scientists have established 9 boundaries that they say we cannot cross if we expect to maintain that stable Holocene environment. Katherine Richardson and others have made the case that we have already crossed six of those critical boundaries, beyond which “Earth system stability and life-support systems conducive to the human welfare and societal development experienced during the Holocene” are at risk (Richardson, 2023). These boundaries we have already crossed include loss of animal species and their biological function, climate change, freshwater resource change, synthetic chemical pollution, fertilizer runoff, and loss of natural lands. This is cause for concern (Wiedmann, 2020).

How serious is this? William Rees argues that “the global economy will inevitably contract and humanity will suffer a major population correction in this century,” (Rees, 2023). “The climate crisis may wipe out six billion people” (Rees, 2019). Milton Saier wrote, “It seems that only with a very substantial reduction in the size of the human population can we hope for a stable order for Earth’s biosphere and its human inhabitants” (Saier, 2023). Martin Desvaux agrees: “It is the sheer weight of human numbers that is causing the overdraft on natural resources. If this continues uncorrected, a population crash will be inevitable” (Desvaux, 2007). As William Ripple put it, our actions could be critical to “the very future of humanity” (Ripple, 2022).

When would this crash happen? Multiple scientists have warned that climate change could possibly be leading to global societal collapse this century (Weyhenmeyer, 2020). Eminent Australian scientist Frank Fenner goes so far as to say, “Humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change” (Edwards, 2010). Megan Seibert and William Rees argue that, “to achieve sustainability and salvage civilization, society must embark on a planned, cooperative descent from an extreme state of overshoot in just a decade or two” (Seibert, 2021). Other people say we have much longer. We don’t know. Perhaps we should at least pay attention. (source: https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/)

Your solution wouldn't even begin to address the problem they are describing, yes?

 

[Merle]

Yes we can. Are you suggesting that we'll reach a point where we can no longer make advances in technology and ways of working?

Last I heard, the planet is finite. see https://ourfiniteworld.com/

 

[DBT]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?

How about more efficient houses and smarter transit systems inatead of just more of the same old crap?

A steady state economy doesn't exclude living well, innovation, efficiency or progress in science. It just excludes the notion of perpetual growth in population and exploitation of natural resources, which, given a finite world that we have alreading overburdened, is a Ponzi scheme heading for disaster.

 

[DBT]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

We can't keep increasing productivity in perpetuity.

Yes we can. Are you suggesting that we'll reach a point where we can no longer make advances in technology and ways of working?

Advances in science and technology is not the same as perpetual population growth and use of natural resources. A steady state economy doesn't exclude work in science, technology, exploration, efficiency or innovation.

 

[steve_bank]

And again in this steady state system with a stable population on a large scale how are decisions made as to utilization of resources, what science gets funded, and what gets produced?

If you are thinking democratic processes think again as you watch national and global politics in action.

 

[DBT]

And again in this steady state system with a stable population on a large scale how are decisions made as to utilization of resources, what science gets funded, and what gets produced?

If you are thinking democratic processes think again as you watch national and global politics in action.

Large scale may a problem regardess of a steady state economy if our resource use and destruction of ecosystems exceeds sustainability due to high consumption and sheer population size.

As for funding, that can be achieved at any point. The ancient world didn't have a population of eight billion and growing, yet they built civilizations, grand buildings and monuments, aquiducts, theatres, did philosophy, worked at understanding the natural world, etcetera, with a population a fraction of ours.


And again, classical economists like Adam Smith thought that passed a certain threshold in growth a steady state economy is inevitable.

 

[Elixir]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?

How about more efficient houses and smarter transit systems inatead of just more of the same old crap?

A steady state economy doesn't exclude living well, innovation, efficiency or progress in science. It just excludes the notion of perpetual growth in population and exploitation of natural resources, which, given a finite world that we have alreading overburdened, is a Ponzi scheme heading for disaster.

That's what I would think. Not necessarily more crap, just better crap. Maybe cleaner crap, a nicer house, continuous improvement in utilization of resources and environmental maintenance/support. Stuff like that. Is there a reason that growth has to be a head count?

 

[bigfield]

Yes we can. Are you suggesting that we'll reach a point where we can no longer make advances in technology and ways of working?

Last I heard, the planet is finite. see https://ourfiniteworld.com/

The universe is finite, and that's about the only hard limit.

Advances in science and technology is not the same as perpetual population growth and use of natural resources. A steady state economy doesn't exclude work in science, technology, exploration, efficiency or innovation.

We aren't going to have perpetual population growth, even in our current economic system.

We will certainly consume increasing amounts of energy as science and technology advance. That's necessary to make machines do more work for us.

Your solution wouldn't even begin to address the problem they are describing, yes?

Quite the contrary, it would be an essential part of any solution to curb environmental damage, including some of those proposed by the scientists.

Also worth pointing out that Wiedmann et al support a point that several people have made in this thread and the last: our environmental crisis is the fault of a small minority of the world's population, and we need to change their behaviour, not blame our problems on overpopulation.

The affluent citizens of the world are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions. We summarise the evidence and present possible solution approaches. Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements.

Scientists’ warning on affluence - Nature Communications

Current environmental impact mitigation neglects over-consumption from affluent citizens as a primary driver. The authors highlight the role of bottom-up movements to overcome structural economic growth imperatives spurring consumption by changing structures and culture towards safe and just...

www.nature.com

 

[bilby]

Life in Medieval Europe was much as you describe, for several centuries.

But there's a reason why "medieval" isn't used as a modern epithet for "kind", or "joyous", or "innovative"..

When you continually resort to cherry-picking, caricature and straw men, are you not afraid some will think that's all you got?
Why stop at "Medieval Europe"? Why not go for broke with "Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge"?

For nearly three hundred years Britain, reconciled to the Roman system, enjoyed in many respects the happiest, most comfortable, and most enlightened times its inhabitants have ever had. In this period, almost equal to that which separates us from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, well-to-do persons in Britain lived better than they ever did until late Victorian times. From the year 400 till the year 1900 no one had central heating and very few had hot baths. A wealthy British-Roman citizen building a country house regarded the hypocaust which warmed it as indispensable. For fifteen hundred years his descendants lived in the cold of unheated dwellings, mitigated by occasional roastings at gigantic wasteful fires. Even now a smaller proportion of the whole population dwells in centrally heated houses than in those ancient days. As for baths, they were completely lost till the middle of the nineteenth century. In all this long, bleak intervening gap cold and dirt clung to the most fortunate and highest in the land.

Churchill was a tit.

And the wealthy British-Roman's hypocaust depended for its operation on a slave working outdoors in the cold and the rain, feeding the furnace without getting any benefit from it.

And more slaves were needed for all those other comforts that he enjoyed.

And he still never once saw a roll of soft toilet paper. Our modern underclass lives better than Roman Britain's elite did, in many respects.

But all that aside, Churchill's view of the Medieval period supports, rather than refuting, my position. Rome wasn't a static society or economy. Medieval Europe was.

 

[DBT]

There's is hardly a comparison to be made between the high mortality rates of ancient times, poor hygiene, lack of antibiotics, high infant mortality rates, etc, and what are capable of in this day and age, willingly limit family size, designing a stable economy that is fair, provides opportunity and benefits all citizens. Something that should have been a priority at the beginning of the 20th century. Quality of life over sheer numbers and the illusion of perpetual growth, which many of our 'leaders' and economists still spruik.

Is this "stable" economy a "steady-state" economy? Wouldn't that require that no-one does anything to increase productivity?

Not the way I (mis?)understand it.
When productivity increases, everyone simply gets more of everything.

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?

How about more efficient houses and smarter transit systems inatead of just more of the same old crap?

A steady state economy doesn't exclude living well, innovation, efficiency or progress in science. It just excludes the notion of perpetual growth in population and exploitation of natural resources, which, given a finite world that we have alreading overburdened, is a Ponzi scheme heading for disaster.

That's what I would think. Not necessarily more crap, just better crap. Maybe cleaner crap, a nicer house, continuous improvement in utilization of resources and environmental maintenance/support. Stuff like that. Is there a reason that growth has to be a head count?

Growth tends to concentrate wealth at the top, the super rich, the politicians, leaders of industry, the movers and shakers. Follow the money, who is happy with the status quo, the disparity in wealth? Who gets to benefit? Who has the power to set policy and influence people?