Population

[Swammerdami]

What I have said repeatedly is that there is no burden on me to propose a good population reduction method.
I am a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist.

2. Doing so would not end any of our significant ecological crises, whose origin for the most part is the over-exploitation of wild resources and abuse of the lower classes, not legitimate needs of the majority of human beings given sufficient creativity.

Yes or No: Have aquifers been depleted by the high human population? I am NOT asking what MIGHT be accomplished in future if sufficiently creative individuals invent dilithium crystals; I'm asking about the real world in the year 2021.

1. Malthusianism is pseudo-science, not actual science. If there were tangible, concrete evidence that we were above the "carrying capacity" of the planet, or that it is "in the nature" of the human population to expand exponentially until violently curbed, I myself might consider switching sides....

I think it's in the nature of many or most species to expand until curbed. Typically they expand to fill a niche, or fill it as well as they can in the presence of competitors and predators. But does Homo technologia have any competitors or predators (other than coronavirus!)?

A huge percentage of the Earth is now devoted to feeding mankind. Habitat destruction is severe; species are going extinct. Does this bother you? Or do you fall for the Christian meme that Earth was created to serve Man?

Insects are an important Class of animals; scientists now estimate that terrestrial insects' populations are decreasing by an AVERAGE of 10% per decade. (It is much higher for some species and in some locales.)
A. Should this concern us?
B. Would it have happened if the human population were 1 billion instead of 8 billion?

If you were a descriptivist, you'd be able to show your work. Critically, your data. Instead of asking me about pure hypotheticals with no relevance to current world events. Data on China's population over time is easily available, you should know that the program did not, in fact, measurably reduce the overall population.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd be willing to answer my questions!
"Pure hypothetical? ... Show my work"?? Do you need help Googling what scientists think about terrestrial insect populations???

You ARE right about one thing! Data on China's population is easily available. Looking at the informative China/India population ratio you will see that it was 1.44 in 1980, about when the One-Child policy began. It immediately began a steep decline, and India is projected to pass China and become the most populous country very soon. But your confusion there is irrelevant: Again, for the umpteenth time, I am discussing the population problem, not proposing any solution.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I am discussing the population problem, not proposing any solution.

 

[Politesse]

Again, for the umpteenth time, I am discussing the population problem, not proposing any solution.

Well that's a bit useless, isn't it?

 

[bilby]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

 

[DBT]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

We are not living sustainably now. Increasing consumption, resource use, consumerism, waste, pollution, etc, as more people have greater spending power, cars, houses, overseas travel, appliances, luxury goods, is not likely to improve our impact on the planet regardless of good intentions. Governments still fret over growth, immigration, stimulating economic activity, more suburbs, spending, consumerism.....

 

[bilby]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

We are not living sustainably now. Increasing consumption, resource use, consumerism, waste, pollution, etc, as more people have greater spending power, cars, houses, overseas travel, appliances, luxury goods, is not likely to improve our impact on the planet regardless of good intentions. Governments still fret over growth, immigration, stimulating economic activity, more suburbs, spending, consumerism.....

No shit.

None of this renders population relevant to our real problems.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was talking about education, management of resources and good government. We of course don't have, and never had, we live in a divided, fractured world where governments act largely in their own interests, big corporations and the super-rich. The results of which may bite us hard in the decades to come.

The science is clear. The problem presently is to still hang onto the "it may happen" mentality. It is happening and it will only get worse.

 

[bilby]

I was talking about education, management of resources and good government. We of course don't have, and never had, we live in a divided, fractured world where governments act largely in their own interests, big corporations and the super-rich. The results of which may bite us hard in the decades to come.

The science is clear. The problem presently is to still hang onto the "it may happen" mentality. It is happening and it will only get worse.

All of which is true, but notably includes no mention of, nor has anything whatsoever to do with, population.

Being concerned about the environment doesn't require, imply, or even suggest being concerned about population.

Sustainability implies effective and efficient recycling of materials from waste streams back to raw materials. Any activity that doesn't include the closure of that cycle is ultimately unsustainable regardless of population levels (although in some cases this need not concern us due to the vast timescales involved - for example, solar power is unsustainable insofar as the Sun will eventually die, but that's a problem humanity is very unlikely to survive long enough to need to worry about).

We can recycle anything, if we are prepared to pay the costs of doing so. The problem is that we are not prepared to pay those costs - just look at the response to proposed 'carbon taxes' - and that problem (like every other specific problem we face) is population neutral. Population is irrelevant to our environmental issues.

 

[DBT]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

We are not living sustainably now. Increasing consumption, resource use, consumerism, waste, pollution, etc, as more people have greater spending power, cars, houses, overseas travel, appliances, luxury goods, is not likely to improve our impact on the planet regardless of good intentions. Governments still fret over growth, immigration, stimulating economic activity, more suburbs, spending, consumerism.....

No shit.

None of this renders population relevant to our real problems.

No shit? Some disagree. There are two sides in the population debate.

 

[bilby]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

We are not living sustainably now. Increasing consumption, resource use, consumerism, waste, pollution, etc, as more people have greater spending power, cars, houses, overseas travel, appliances, luxury goods, is not likely to improve our impact on the planet regardless of good intentions. Governments still fret over growth, immigration, stimulating economic activity, more suburbs, spending, consumerism.....

No shit.

None of this renders population relevant to our real problems.

No shit? Some disagree. There are two sides in the population debate.

Your post, to which I was responding, didn't mention population. It has bugger all to do with the population debate.

 

[DBT]

Scale is the issue. With a stable population of one or two billion, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

Sure we would.

We would just be having it a few decades later.

If humans burn all the accessible coal oil and gas (and so far, they do), then the resulting carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere will be calamitous.

Two billion people behaving the way our actual population behaved since the Industrial revolution would take a little longer to do this, but they would still do it. Unless, like us, they decided to try not to, and unlike us, they acted on that decision.

The activity/consumption rate of two billion per head doesn't compare to the same level of consumption per head of a population of eight billion.

Sure it does. It's going to be in the order if a quarter of that consumption.

Given that most carbon emissions have been in the last fifty or one hundred years, that implies a similar disastrous situation in circa 2200CE to that which we face today.

Reducing population just delays the inevitable. Any real solution needs to be independent of population.

As standard of living rises for those living in developing nations, consumption must steadily increase over the rest of the century and beyond.

The question is, will climate and environmental change allow a population of eight to ten billion people to live western lifestyles.....

No, the question is can we find ways to live those lifestyles sustainably.

If we can, population is irrelevant because we can support whatever population we have.

If we can't, population is irrelevant because we will hit the wall eventually no matter how small the population is.

We are not living sustainably now. Increasing consumption, resource use, consumerism, waste, pollution, etc, as more people have greater spending power, cars, houses, overseas travel, appliances, luxury goods, is not likely to improve our impact on the planet regardless of good intentions. Governments still fret over growth, immigration, stimulating economic activity, more suburbs, spending, consumerism.....

No shit.

None of this renders population relevant to our real problems.

No shit? Some disagree. There are two sides in the population debate.

Your post, to which I was responding, didn't mention population. It has bugger all to do with the population debate.

As I have been talking about the issue being a combination of population and consumption rate all along, this thread and others, what I say on this topic is related to a combination of population and consumption even if population is not specifically mentioned in a brief remark,ie, that sustainability is related to both number of consumers and consumption rate.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As I have been talking about the issue being a combination of population and consumption rate all along, this thread and others, what I say on this topic is related to a combination of population and consumption even if population is not specifically mentioned in a brief remark,ie, that sustainability is related to both number of consumers and consumption rate.

At this point it will only be talked about. That it is at least being talked about is a good thing.

 

[Elixir]

My point is that if eight billion people will cause a climate disaster in twenty years through fossil fuel burning, then eight hundred million people will cause the same disaster in (just over) two centuries, ceteris paribus, so the problem isn't population - it's the ceteris that are not being prevented from being paribus.

That ignores rates of sequestration.
I find that your rose colored glasses tend to let you conflate the possible with the likely. Solutions that would work but never will, because … reality.

It looks to me, Bilby, as if you are subscribing to a "peak population" projection like that of Hans Rosling. Doesn't look like that's going to exactly work out as described either...

 

[bilby]

My point is that if eight billion people will cause a climate disaster in twenty years through fossil fuel burning, then eight hundred million people will cause the same disaster in (just over) two centuries, ceteris paribus, so the problem isn't population - it's the ceteris that are not being prevented from being paribus.

That ignores rates of sequestration.
I find that your rose colored glasses tend to let you conflate the possible with the likely. Solutions that would work but never will, because … reality.

It looks to me, Bilby, as if you are subscribing to a "peak population" projection like that of Hans Rosling. Doesn't look like that's going to exactly work out as described either...

In what way is he wrong?

 

[Elixir]

My point is that if eight billion people will cause a climate disaster in twenty years through fossil fuel burning, then eight hundred million people will cause the same disaster in (just over) two centuries, ceteris paribus, so the problem isn't population - it's the ceteris that are not being prevented from being paribus.

That ignores rates of sequestration.
I find that your rose colored glasses tend to let you conflate the possible with the likely. Solutions that would work but never will, because … reality.

It looks to me, Bilby, as if you are subscribing to a "peak population" projection like that of Hans Rosling. Doesn't look like that's going to exactly work out as described either...

In what way is he wrong?

Did you watch the TED talk? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying things aren't going exactly to the plan described therein.
We are about at the point he projected, populations are still growing and there seems little collective interest in bringing poor nations out of poverty,

 

[bilby]

My point is that if eight billion people will cause a climate disaster in twenty years through fossil fuel burning, then eight hundred million people will cause the same disaster in (just over) two centuries, ceteris paribus, so the problem isn't population - it's the ceteris that are not being prevented from being paribus.

That ignores rates of sequestration.
I find that your rose colored glasses tend to let you conflate the possible with the likely. Solutions that would work but never will, because … reality.

It looks to me, Bilby, as if you are subscribing to a "peak population" projection like that of Hans Rosling. Doesn't look like that's going to exactly work out as described either...

In what way is he wrong?

Did you watch the TED talk? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying things aren't going exactly to the plan described therein.

It's one I have seen, but some time ago.

I am not in a position to watch video right now.

We are about at the point he projected, populations are still growing and there seems little collective interest in bringing poor nations out of poverty,

I don't recall him setting a firm timetable; The basic trends all support him, but there have been a number of influences that have slowed the rate of improvement in conditions around the world, which he couldn't and/or didn't anticipate.

Population growth remains a solved problem. It's neither going to continue indefinitely, nor outstrip even our current capacity to support everybody (and that capacity has not only grown faster than population for a couple of centuries, but has continued to grow at an accelerating rate).

That this is deeply disappointing to those still living in the 1970s is unimportant to me.

Nobody's made, or is ever likely to make, a perfect prediction of future population patterns. But while all predictions are therefore wrong, it's clear that Rosling's camp are broadly in conformity with reality, while Ehrlich's camp are wildly and spectacularly wrong.

This is the year in which 'Soylent Green' was set. Had the population growth of the first half of the twentieth century continued as Ehrlich and others feared, it (and other such dire warnings, like Harry Harrison's 'Make Room! Make Room!') wouldn't be all that far-fetched. But it didn't, so they were.

 

[steve_bank]

How do you bring poor nations out of poverty? Especially when political stability is hard to come by.

Not all cultures have or want our western drive for entrepreneurship and initiative. Look at modern Israel and China both of which reinveted themselves. Then look at Saudi Arbia and its anachronistic monarchy, based partly on what amounts to slave labor at the bottom by freign workers. Jordan is an American welfare state.

From a show I watched SA is essentially a welfare state. Incomes are generally derived from oil. In the show in the 90s by Ted Kopel a Saudi manufacturer was interviewed. He said it was had to get Saudi men to stick with a job. Culture is everything.

Plus chronic corruption. Puerto Rico is a good example. It is back in the news with FBI investigations, disater money siphoned to the eleite. A lot of maney in disaster air and her money fora long time, yet they can not manage an electrical system for about 5 million people.

A global welfare state?

 

[bilby]

How do you bring poor nations out of poverty? Especially when political stability is hard to come by.

Not all cultures have or want our western drive for entrepreneurship and initiative. Look at modern Israel and China both of which reinveted themselves. Then look at Saudi Arbia and its anachronistic monarchy, based partly on what amounts to slave labor at the bottom by freign workers. Jordan is an American welfare state.

From a show I watched SA is essentially a welfare state. Incomes are generally derived from oil. In the show in the 90s by Ted Kopel a Saudi manufacturer was interviewed. He said it was had to get Saudi men to stick with a job. Culture is everything.

Plus chronic corruption. Puerto Rico is a good example. It is back in the news with FBI investigations, disater money siphoned to the eleite. A lot of maney in disaster air and her money fora long time, yet they can not manage an electrical system for about 5 million people.

A global welfare state?

If you think Saudi Arabia qualifies as a poor nation, then you are too far removed from reality to contribute anything useful to the discussion.

Poverty isn't a political position, it's a financial one. Being politically different from the USA is neither poverty, nor necessarily a bad thing.