Population

[bilby]

That's the received wisdom. Is there good evidence that it's true? Or is it just a widely held belief?

It seems clear that there are trends in place that cannot be sustained. The warming effect of increasing CO2 is an obvious example. Deterioration of ocean ecology is another.

These are not necessary. They can be resolved with current technology.

Now, future technology might solve these problems.

Not so. Current technology already can. But it requires people not to oppose such technology.

Proving that technology will NOT solve these problems is almost impossible! Who knows? Perhaps Professor Bilby will be advertising a Magic Wand just next month!

Sorry, but weren't you the person who was only yesterday claiming that ad hominem implies victory for the debator who doesn't engage in that fallacy?

 

[Elixir]

"XYZ could solve..." doesn't feed the donkey. "If only people would not oppose..." doesn't yet keep people from opposing. It could yet turn out that intelligence is, as some have surmised, a lethal mutation.

The potato farm story is poignant. He's not out of business because of poor management as libertarian types would assume and assert, but because McDonalds transformed the potato farming industry and he got left behind. That transformation brought cheap food to billions, heart disease to millions and bankruptcy to some competitors and food producers. On balance it is a short term boon to population growth. In the longer term, maybe not so much. More than 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest is already gone, and nobody knows what the effects of that sudden change will be.

Oceans are definitely taking a hit, and extinctions are proceeding at rates previously only seen with natural catastrophes. As diversity decreases, the risks to HSS increase.

 

[Valjean]

Too many for what?

For the planet's carrying capacity. We're well above that already.

That's the received wisdom. Is there good evidence that it's true? Or is it just a widely held belief?

All natural systems are in decline; collapsing.
Water tables are dropping. Topsoil depth is decreasing. The sea is overfished, polluted and awash in trash, its pH is decreasing and temperature increasing. Marine nurseries like mangrove forests are now luxury hotels. Petroleum reserves are becoming increasingly hazardous to tap. Atmospheric CH4 and CO2 are increasing. Arctic snowcover is melting, along with regional albedo. Permafrost is melting and the tundra is outgassing even more Co2 and Ch4. Greenland is melting, sea level rising. The African Sahel is desertifying fast. The Amazon, Asian and African rainforests are rapidly diminishing. Species worldwide are becoming extinct, as human population, resource usage and carbon footprint increases. Invasive species are upsetting established ecosystems.

Just off the top of my head...

 

[bilby]

That's the received wisdom. Is there good evidence that it's true? Or is it just a widely held belief?

All natural systems are in decline; collapsing.
Water tables are dropping. Topsoil depth is decreasing. The sea is overfished, polluted and awash in trash, its pH is decreasing and temperature increasing. Marine nurseries like mangrove forests are now luxury hotels. Petroleum reserves are becoming increasingly hazardous to tap. Atmospheric CH4 and CO2 are increasing. Arctic snowcover is melting, along with regional albedo. Permafrost is melting and the tundra is outgassing even more Co2 and Ch4. Greenland is melting, sea level rising. The African Sahel is desertifying fast. The Amazon, Asian and African rainforests are rapidly diminishing. Species worldwide are becoming extinct, as human population, resource usage and carbon footprint increases. Invasive species are upsetting established ecosystems.

Just off the top of my head...

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things.

If people burn too much coal, that doesn't imply that there are too many people, unless it's unavoidable that people must burn coal.

Whaling was unsustainable in the 19th century. World population is now massively greater than it was then, and yet the pressure on whales has gone, and their numbers are rapidly recovering. So while there was clear unsustainability, it didn't translate into a clear example of "overpopulation".

So, again: Where is the evidence that we are above the planet's carrying capacity? What is that capacity, and why? And if we don't know what it is, how do we know we're above it?

Any problem that could be solved without population reductions isn't a carrying capacity problem. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a problem - but it does mean that bitching about overpopulation is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive at worst.

 

[JohnG]

That's the received wisdom. Is there good evidence that it's true? Or is it just a widely held belief?

All natural systems are in decline; collapsing.
Water tables are dropping. Topsoil depth is decreasing. The sea is overfished, polluted and awash in trash, its pH is decreasing and temperature increasing. Marine nurseries like mangrove forests are now luxury hotels. Petroleum reserves are becoming increasingly hazardous to tap. Atmospheric CH4 and CO2 are increasing. Arctic snowcover is melting, along with regional albedo. Permafrost is melting and the tundra is outgassing even more Co2 and Ch4. Greenland is melting, sea level rising. The African Sahel is desertifying fast. The Amazon, Asian and African rainforests are rapidly diminishing. Species worldwide are becoming extinct, as human population, resource usage and carbon footprint increases. Invasive species are upsetting established ecosystems.

Just off the top of my head...

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things.

If people burn too much coal, that doesn't imply that there are too many people, unless it's unavoidable that people must burn coal.

Whaling was unsustainable in the 19th century. World population is now massively greater than it was then, and yet the pressure on whales has gone, and their numbers are rapidly recovering. So while there was clear unsustainability, it didn't translate into a clear example of "overpopulation".

So, again: Where is the evidence that we are above the planet's carrying capacity? What is that capacity, and why? And if we don't know what it is, how do we know we're above it?

Any problem that could be solved without population reductions isn't a carrying capacity problem. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a problem - but it does mean that bitching about overpopulation is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive at worst.

You make a good argument. However, isn't it possible that it's much harder to turn a ship of 9 billion than say 8 million?

 

[bilby]

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things.

If people burn too much coal, that doesn't imply that there are too many people, unless it's unavoidable that people must burn coal.

Whaling was unsustainable in the 19th century. World population is now massively greater than it was then, and yet the pressure on whales has gone, and their numbers are rapidly recovering. So while there was clear unsustainability, it didn't translate into a clear example of "overpopulation".

So, again: Where is the evidence that we are above the planet's carrying capacity? What is that capacity, and why? And if we don't know what it is, how do we know we're above it?

Any problem that could be solved without population reductions isn't a carrying capacity problem. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a problem - but it does mean that bitching about overpopulation is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive at worst.

You make a good argument. However, isn't it possible that it's much harder to turn a ship of 9 billion than say 8 million?

It's possible. Is it likely? I suspect not. There are many solutions to environmental issues that are easier for a technologically advanced civilisation, and there are a couple of good reasons why such civilisations are more likely to arise when population is high - firstly because population allows equally talented individuals to achieve higher levels of specialisation; And secondly because high populations have more extreme outliers in their range of talents, and so produce more geniuses who can further advance science and technology.

Without the contributions of dozens of specialists and a handful of geniuses in the early twentieth century, burning coal might still be our only way to make large quantities of reliable electricity, for example.

To extend your analogy, 9 billion people likely include a few who can come up with a better way to steer the ship, and by so doing more than compensate for the higher inertia due to sheer numbers.

 

[fromderinside]

Watching people flee the ME and Europeans selectively choosing those who are educated to fills spots no longer provided by growing local populations is not rational for being optimistic about people solving problems.

In fact those vary moved ones opened the "me-thee" sore all over again in democratic societies in Europe and the Americas and Australia as well as in less democratic societies in China India SE Asia, and Japan.

Things are all hunky dory until "he's not one of us" returns and upsets the apple cart of social excess kumbaya.

Some are going to survive some aren't. One can't keep out the hordes for ever. Since it comes up that "well we've got agreements" they are only good until they aren't any good any more.

So remember. They're rioting in Africa, there's strife in Iran, the whole world is festering with unhappy souls ..... and I don't like anybody very much.

The problem makers are back! No lessons from the dark ages? Populations go up until they collapse and there's always a reason for the collapse. Me is important again.

 

[Swammerdami]

... And secondly because high populations have more extreme outliers in their range of talents, and so produce more geniuses who can further advance science and technology.

Without the contributions of dozens of specialists and a handful of geniuses in the early twentieth century, burning coal might still be our only way to make large quantities of reliable electricity, for example.

To extend your analogy, 9 billion people likely include a few who can come up with a better way to steer the ship, and by so doing more than compensate for the higher inertia due to sheer numbers.

It's tangential to the main debate, but I question this frequent argument. Archimedes and Isaac Newton are regarded as two of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, yet were born when the population was much less than now. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe are other examples of extreme genius emerging before the Epoch of Overpopulation.

Or, coming at the point from another direction, one-in-a-million (rather than one-in-a-billion) is plenty rare enough for genius to emerge. The social and economic conditions which foster invention will be far more important than extra orders of magnitude of individual rarity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... And secondly because high populations have more extreme outliers in their range of talents, and so produce more geniuses who can further advance science and technology.

Without the contributions of dozens of specialists and a handful of geniuses in the early twentieth century, burning coal might still be our only way to make large quantities of reliable electricity, for example.

To extend your analogy, 9 billion people likely include a few who can come up with a better way to steer the ship, and by so doing more than compensate for the higher inertia due to sheer numbers.

It's tangential to the main debate, but I question this frequent argument. Archimedes and Isaac Newton are regarded as two of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, yet were born when the population was much less than now. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe are other examples of extreme genius emerging before the Epoch of Overpopulation.

Or, coming at the point from another direction, one-in-a-million (rather than one-in-a-billion) is plenty rare enough for genius to emerge. The social and economic conditions which foster invention will be far more important than extra orders of magnitude of individual rarity.

Claiming that there will always be geniuses around to solve all our problems is the same as believing that the gods will save and protect us. If the gods were busy saving and protecting us we would never have any problems and never need their services. Likewise geniuses.

 

[bilby]

... And secondly because high populations have more extreme outliers in their range of talents, and so produce more geniuses who can further advance science and technology.

Without the contributions of dozens of specialists and a handful of geniuses in the early twentieth century, burning coal might still be our only way to make large quantities of reliable electricity, for example.

To extend your analogy, 9 billion people likely include a few who can come up with a better way to steer the ship, and by so doing more than compensate for the higher inertia due to sheer numbers.

It's tangential to the main debate, but I question this frequent argument. Archimedes and Isaac Newton are regarded as two of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, yet were born when the population was much less than now. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe are other examples of extreme genius emerging before the Epoch of Overpopulation.

Or, coming at the point from another direction, one-in-a-million (rather than one-in-a-billion) is plenty rare enough for genius to emerge. The social and economic conditions which foster invention will be far more important than extra orders of magnitude of individual rarity.

And those conditions include the existence of lots of cities large enough to support universities (which is perhaps more related to the first point I made, that you snipped - the two points are interdependent, not independent).

 

[bilby]

... And secondly because high populations have more extreme outliers in their range of talents, and so produce more geniuses who can further advance science and technology.

Without the contributions of dozens of specialists and a handful of geniuses in the early twentieth century, burning coal might still be our only way to make large quantities of reliable electricity, for example.

To extend your analogy, 9 billion people likely include a few who can come up with a better way to steer the ship, and by so doing more than compensate for the higher inertia due to sheer numbers.

It's tangential to the main debate, but I question this frequent argument. Archimedes and Isaac Newton are regarded as two of the greatest geniuses who ever lived, yet were born when the population was much less than now. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe are other examples of extreme genius emerging before the Epoch of Overpopulation.

Or, coming at the point from another direction, one-in-a-million (rather than one-in-a-billion) is plenty rare enough for genius to emerge. The social and economic conditions which foster invention will be far more important than extra orders of magnitude of individual rarity.

Claiming that there will always be geniuses around to solve all our problems is the same as believing that the gods will save and protect us. If the gods were busy saving and protecting us we would never have any problems and never need their services. Likewise geniuses.

Are you implying that technology, like religion, is a valueless figment of our imaginations?

Again, my argument only appears weak here because only the second (and less important) of my points is being considered.

 

[steve_bank]

One oter thing from the BBC report. On paper any couple gets access to family support., but in practice it is funneled to those the CCP wants to breed. Han educated upper level people.

If not the most China is one of the most racist counties in the world.

A form of eugenics. They are looking to breed people they think will compete globaly in the new global economy.

They tried aggressive birth control and it backfired. It seems us humans do not learn from experience.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They tried aggressive birth control and it backfired. It seems us humans do not learn from experience.

Not quite. Mao aggressively promoted families to have as many children as possible while simultaneously China was suffering mass starvation during the Great Leap Backward. After Mao was removed from power Deng Xiaoping wanted some return to sane governance and stability. The one child policy was an attempt to undue some of Mao's damage. When it was first introduced it came with the slogan "a one-generation policy". Meaning that after one generation they'd go back to normal.

For whatever intricate political reason, after Deng's death, it stuck around a little longer than originally planned.

It was never intended to be some grand solution to save China. Continuing Mao's aggressive encouragement of lots of children (after Mao's death) wasn't sensible either. Something had to change.

 

[fromderinside]

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things.

If people burn too much coal, that doesn't imply that there are too many people, unless it's unavoidable that people must burn coal.

Whaling was unsustainable in the 19th century. World population is now massively greater than it was then, and yet the pressure on whales has gone, and their numbers are rapidly recovering. So while there was clear unsustainability, it didn't translate into a clear example of "overpopulation".

So, again: Where is the evidence that we are above the planet's carrying capacity? What is that capacity, and why? And if we don't know what it is, how do we know we're above it?

Any problem that could be solved without population reductions isn't a carrying capacity problem. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a problem - but it does mean that bitching about overpopulation is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive at worst.

You make a good argument. However, isn't it possible that it's much harder to turn a ship of 9 billion than say 8 million?

As bilby sez it just takes more, in this case ocean is the analogy for time, to turn a ship around. There are up to 6000 miles in some places for a ship to be turned around with the same tools - I'm providing context here.

 

[Swammerdami]

Whaling was unsustainable in the 19th century. World population is now massively greater than it was then, and yet the pressure on whales has gone, and their numbers are rapidly recovering. So while there was clear unsustainability, it didn't translate into a clear example of "overpopulation".

I find much to disagree with in bilby's post. Let's start with the Great Extinction.

@ bilby - Do you think we are in an Epoch of Great Extinction? If so, do you regard it as a serious problem?

The following numbers (via Wikipedia) do not include 'data deficient' species, which are likely to be endangered. These are not thorough summaries.

203 mammal species (3.5% of all species) are critically endangered; these include 3 species of rhinoceros, 63 species of primate, 15 species of Cetartiodactyl, 17 species of marsupial, etc. Another 900 species are 'data deficient.'
40 species of turtle, 7 species of crocodile, 110 species of lizard, 39 species of snake are all critically endangered. Another 910 reptile species are 'data deficient.'
540 amphibian species (8.4% of all species) are critically endangered.
224 bird species (2% of all species) are critically endangered.
455 fish species (3% of all species) are critically endangered. 3191 species are 'data deficient.'
Hundreds of species of snails, shrimps, spiders and so on are critically endangered.
Dozens of species of bumblebees, grasshoppers, crickets, etc. are now shown as "possibly extinct."
29 species of beetles, butterflies and moths are critically endangered.
2493 species of plant (11%) are critically endangered. Another 1674 species are 'data deficient.'

You mention whales. Despite bans on hunting whales, many species are still endangered. For example,

Eubalaena glacialis (North Atlantic right whale) ...

There are less than 366 individuals in existence in the western North Atlantic Ocean—they migrate between feeding grounds in the Labrador Sea and their winter calving areas off Georgia and Florida, an ocean area with heavy shipping traffic. In the eastern North Atlantic, on the other hand—with a total population reaching into the low teens at most—scientists believe that they may already be functionally extinct. Vessel strikes and entanglement in fixed fishing gear, which together account for nearly half of all North Atlantic right whale mortality since 1970, are their two greatest threats to recovery.

I realize that for many the response to lists of critically endangered species will be 'So What?' But at least let's start with factual facts and not claim that whales are no longer endangered.

 

[Swammerdami]

That's the received wisdom. Is there good evidence that it's true? Or is it just a widely held belief?

All natural systems are in decline; collapsing.
Water tables are dropping. Topsoil depth is decreasing. The sea is overfished, polluted and awash in trash, its pH is decreasing and temperature increasing. Marine nurseries like mangrove forests are now luxury hotels. Petroleum reserves are becoming increasingly hazardous to tap. Atmospheric CH4 and CO2 are increasing. Arctic snowcover is melting, along with regional albedo. Permafrost is melting and the tundra is outgassing even more Co2 and Ch4. Greenland is melting, sea level rising. The African Sahel is desertifying fast. The Amazon, Asian and African rainforests are rapidly diminishing. Species worldwide are becoming extinct, as human population, resource usage and carbon footprint increases. Invasive species are upsetting established ecosystems.

Just off the top of my head...

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things....

I do NOT understand this argument. The huge majority of energy consumed by man is NOT spent on fuel for billionaires' private jets. It's spent on gasoline for commuters, air conditioning to cope with ever-increasing temperatures, and materials.

Concrete, cardboard(!) and especially steel are materials that require huge amounts of energy to produce. (Cite.) With the magnificent hardwood forests of Southeast Asia largely removed, houses where I live are mostly built from steel-reinforced concrete. When you write "a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much" are you suggesting that less steel reinforcement should be used in concrete houses?

 

[Swammerdami]

A sudden power outage caused me to click Submit before my reply was finished.

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

21% of the world's electricity currently derives just from dams and wind turbines. All else equal, if the world's population were 21% what it is now, ALL electricity could derive from dams and wind.

Bilby's arguments are very difficult for me to understand. Does he deny that water tables have fallen critically in places like India? Does he claim that modern agriculture, dependent on hormones and artificial fertilizers, doesn't damage the environment? Many of these problems are NOT due to poor choices: they result directly from high populations.

 

[bilby]

Almost all of those things boil down to "too much coal and oil have been and are being burned".

Which is true, but not really a function of absolute population. We don't need to burn fossil fuels - and if world population were dramatically lower, it would just delay the inevitable, without a change in technology from fossil to nuclear energy.

If there were only 800 million people instead of eight billion, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would still reach about the same concentration once all the accessible coal and oil have been extracted and burned. It would just take a few more decades.

The planet doesn't have a carrying capacity in any real sense - a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much; Or a tiny number could fuck it up beyond repair.

The question on the table is 'how many people can live comfortably and sustainably on Earth?'. That the number that we currently have are not choosing to do so is a different problem altogether. It's easy enough to see that something needs to change - but it's FAR from easy to see that the absolute population of humans, current or projected, is one of those things....

I do NOT understand this argument. The huge majority of energy consumed by man is NOT spent on fuel for billionaires' private jets. It's spent on gasoline for commuters, air conditioning to cope with ever-increasing temperatures, and materials.

Concrete, cardboard(!) and especially steel are materials that require huge amounts of energy to produce. (Cite.) With the magnificent hardwood forests of Southeast Asia largely removed, houses where I live are mostly built from steel-reinforced concrete. When you write "a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much" are you suggesting that less steel reinforcement should be used in concrete houses?

The overwhelming majority of humans don't live in concrete houses.

But that's not really relevant.

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.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

It's too bad the power outage caused me to click Submit before I was ready. I refuted this claim in my next post.

21% of the world's electricity currently derives just from dams and wind turbines. All else equal, if the world's population were 21% what it is now, ALL electricity could derive from dams and wind.

Similarly, if India's population was half what it is now, I think water depletion would be much LESS than half what it is now. Simply point, the issue is SUSTAINABLE vs NON-SUSTAINABLE.

(I hope to go quietly now. I've hinted at some key points, and don't need to engage in interminable debate.)

 

[Swammerdami]

Concrete, cardboard(!) and especially steel are materials that require huge amounts of energy to produce. (Cite.) With the magnificent hardwood forests of Southeast Asia largely removed, houses where I live are mostly built from steel-reinforced concrete. When you write "a huge number of humans can live well without harming the environment too much" are you suggesting that less steel reinforcement should be used in concrete houses?

The overwhelming majority of humans don't live in concrete houses.

But that's not really relevant.

As you say, it's not too relevant, but I'm curious about the percentages of houses by material. Google isn't very helpful.

Concrete houses are cheaper than wood houses in Thailand and very common in new construction. (Concrete houses are often supplemented with bricks.) India is another big country where wood is very expensive.

And, returning to the point I was making, steel — a material with huge energy cost — is very common in construction even without concrete