Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[Elixir]

How does that argue for global "habitability"? And where's the 1025-1500 part of the graph?
Regardless, it is a simple lifespan statistic, not a measure of reproductive success nor a measure of quality of life.
I could argue that in fact it is an indicator of the opposite. (I won't - I see it as completely irrelevant to the planet's "habitability" by humans.)

A more salient argument for steady state or increasing habitability would be that the raw number of baby humans per year expected to live past infancy has steadily increased (with blips), even if the rate of that increase has slowed rather dramatically in the last few decades.
Rejecting that as an argument for "habitability" is more difficult perhaps, but I find it unconvincing.

 

[Bomb#20]

You need a billion dollars in order to not be a peon?

Gawd I hope not. At least in the short term I think/hope to avoid becoming a geriatric peon. But it will likely require spending every penny of the couple million I might be able to raise by selling everything I own of any value.

Well then, the peons don't outnumber the billionaires half a million to one.

But even with a hundred million in equity, a younger person WILL be a peon unless they tithe 10-20% to Dear Leader. Their freedoms and options will be increasingly constrained or expanded in proportion to their ability and willingness to monetarily support the ruling Junta. Do you disagree, B20? If so pls explain.

Oh for the love of god. Remember the advice of THGTTG: Don't panic! The Dear Leader will go away in four years and the country will go back to normal.

You appear to be obviously correct about species and climate, and obviously incorrect about human habitability.

I think that the 25x or more expansion of human population in the intervening millennium speaks otherwise. (I don’t think that will be the case in the next one.)

Obviously the earth was quite fecund for humans in 1025 despite their lack of modern healthcare, lower life expectancies and greater proportion of time spent on “necessities”.

No! Just no! The earth was not very fecund for humans in 1025. The 25x expansion tells us squat about 1025 earth, because that's not when it happened. It's a phenomenon of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. In 1025 the population was incredibly stable compared to recent times.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-population-and-population-growth-rate-over-the-last-ten-thousands-years-horizontal_fig1_285052364

The growth rate from 1000 to 1600 was pretty consistently about 0.1% - 0.2%, apart from our trifecta of disasters from 1200-1400: Genghis Khan, the Plague, and Tamerlane. Negligible growth has been normal for 99+% of mankind's life on earth. The earth finally started becoming quite fecund for humans in the sixteen and seventeen hundreds, and only really took off in the eighteen and nineteen hundreds.

View attachment 49298
How does that argue for global "habitability"?

What could be a better measure of human habitability then the tendency of the globe not to kill people?

And where's the 1025-1500 part of the graph?

Sorry, couldn't find a graph on the web going back further than 1500. If you're better than me at google-fu, knock yourself out. Judging from the flatness of the curve from 1500 to 1800, I'm pretty sure the 1025 numbers were a lot like the 1500 numbers.

Regardless, it is a simple lifespan statistic, not a measure of reproductive success nor a measure of quality of life.
I could argue that in fact it is an indicator of the opposite. (I won't - I see it as completely irrelevant to the planet's "habitability" by humans.)

A more salient argument for steady state or increasing habitability would be that the raw number of baby humans per year expected to live past infancy has steadily increased (with blips), even if the rate of that increase has slowed rather dramatically in the last few decades.

But that's exactly what you're looking at. The life expectancy in 1500 wasn't 28 because most people died at 29; it was 28 because over half the people died before they were five.

Rejecting that as an argument for "habitability" is more difficult perhaps, but I find it unconvincing.

How would you measure it?

 

[Elixir]

Well then, the peons don't outnumber the billionaires half a million to one.

Assuming my hope is realized.

Dear Leader will go away in four years and the country will go back to normal.

ROFL! Thx for the levity!

What could be a better measure of human habitability then the tendency of the globe not to kill people?

It always kills everybody. Measuring habitability may be an intractable problem, at least in the sense with which I meant to refer to it. I apologize for that - probably could have done without listing it as certainly decreasing. But the proof will be in the pudding.

The life expectancy in 1500 wasn't 28 because most people died at 29; it was 28 because over half the people died before they were five.

Life expectancy for a 5 year old in 1500 was 60-65 years. So infant mortality wasn’t a function of the earth’s habitability as much as of humans’ knowledge of how to keep babies alive.

 

[DBT]

With the knowledge we have, medicine, science, technology, it should be possible to live far better than we did in ancient times, while keeping our population under one billion.

 

[unapologetic]

On every fourteenth Thursday that falls on February 29?

So every 392 years. When do you start counting? 2024? 2052? 2080? This century. (I got bored and stopped there)
1958, 1996, 2024 in my lifetime.

The Dear Leader will go away in four years and the country will go back to normal.

Only if republicans/MAGA learn from their mistake.

it was 28 because over half the people died before they were five.

By what metric? Do you mean average life expectancy?
For a 28 average, If half die by 5, the other half need to live over 50. If you mean optimum life expectancy is 28, Then yes most died at 29. and it doesn't matter how many die at whatever age.

 

[Elixir]

it was 28 because over half the people died before they were five.

By what metric? Do you mean average life expectancy?
For a 28 average, If half die by 5, the other half need to live over 50. If you mean optimum life expectancy is 28, Then yes most died at 29. and it doesn't matter how many die at whatever age.

A person who survived the first five years in 1500 would live an average of 60-65 (Google). That, despite not having today's life-prolonging scientific miracles, nutritional expertise and medical interventions, all of which have netted us maybe 15-20% extended expected lifespans.
As someone who is "expected" to be dead by now, I don't find that very impressive.

In the United States ... the life expectancy at birth for females is about 81 years, and for males, it is about 76 years. Since child mortality is very low in developed countries, the life expectancy at age five is only slightly less than at birth. For instance, according to the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables, a five-year-old girl can expect to live approximately 74.78 more years, and a five-year-old boy about 69.05 more years

And that's in the vaunted United States of America, which recently bragged one of the highest standards of living and greatest lifespan expectations in the world. It dipped somewhat during COVID, and we can probably expect a more severe dip as the fascist regime tightens its grip on every life-extending facet of American life.

Lesotho, Zimbabwe, and Swaziland, have life expectancies ranging from about 45 to 46 years, but data for five year olds in those countries (which have truly excessive rates of infant mortality) is lacking. It IS, however, still much better than the 28 years average B20 cited for 1500, which was presumably a global estimate.
All in all, I'm not terribly impressed with the effect all our science and social engineering have had on lifespans. In fact, if it was possible to subtract military/war deaths from both the now and then figures, I reckon the gains we have realized are pretty minimal. Especially considering how much time, energy and resources we expend trying to realize them.

 

[steve_bank]

I doubt many would expect a dog to act like a monkey.

Yet some seem to think humans can be something other than what we are.

Eventually we will be limited be nature or own own violence.

Trump has over 50% approval rating and it is not a stretch to compare him to Mussolini or Hitler.

Tariffs and threatening military action against Panama. Trump could easily through a wrench into the global economy leading to serious economic problems. Like food supply chains.

The Ukraine war affected global grain supplies. Our bread prices went up, but globally it meant starvation in se areas.

It is not the future, overpopulation is now.

 

[DBT]

We have been in a state of overpopulation for some time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great,

No it wouldn't. They would be miserable. Who would do the work for them? Who would build the robots?
I am not suggesting rich people are lazy. I am saying they don't have survival skills for a depopulated world. Their skill set is management. Manipulating PEOPLE. Not actual production. You would eliminate their tools (other people, and needy). They would be helpless.
Not to mention hyperinflation sucking up all their riches.
The ideal one billion population would be somewhere in the middle.

I think 6 billion would be ideal. What we had when I was a kid. But I admit I haven't put much thought into it.

Under 3 billion was nice. Nothing was broken and there was not even much suspicion that people could be a problem. Malthusian population theory was debunked and global climate change was about all that coal they used in the 1800s.
Species were disappearing at 3-4 times the expected background rate rather than at today’s 50x.
I think 3 billion could maintain a technological base, sustain human genetic diversity and provide plenty for everybody without wrecking stuff like the climate and biodiversity. .
If they would just stop wrecking stuff all the time: it’s why we can’t have nice things.

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

 

[Elixir]

If the richest billion were the only humans, human life would be great,

No it wouldn't. They would be miserable. Who would do the work for them? Who would build the robots?
I am not suggesting rich people are lazy. I am saying they don't have survival skills for a depopulated world. Their skill set is management. Manipulating PEOPLE. Not actual production. You would eliminate their tools (other people, and needy). They would be helpless.
Not to mention hyperinflation sucking up all their riches.
The ideal one billion population would be somewhere in the middle.

I think 6 billion would be ideal. What we had when I was a kid. But I admit I haven't put much thought into it.

Under 3 billion was nice. Nothing was broken and there was not even much suspicion that people could be a problem. Malthusian population theory was debunked and global climate change was about all that coal they used in the 1800s.
Species were disappearing at 3-4 times the expected background rate rather than at today’s 50x.
I think 3 billion could maintain a technological base, sustain human genetic diversity and provide plenty for everybody without wrecking stuff like the climate and biodiversity. .
If they would just stop wrecking stuff all the time: it’s why we can’t have nice things.

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

 

[bilby]

There are only some 600 billionaires in America. Our peons outnumber them not ten to one but closer to a half million to one.

Well I still wouldn't peon them if they were on fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

 

[Swammerdami]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Only extremes are possible. If we reduce usage of gasoline, plastics and DDT we must necessarily stop using flint and obsidian. Got it.

 

[Elixir]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Did you graduate from MSU? (Making Stuff Up)
Flint and obsidian are stones. The era you indicate is literally named for them. And I assure you that igneous “stones” pre-date humans.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the survival of the species after being reduced to far fewer than a million about 70,000 y.a.?

AI:

The global human population approximately 70,000 years ago is estimated to have dropped to a critically low level, possibly between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. This event is known as a population bottleneck. Some studies suggest the population may have fallen as low as 1,000 breeding pairs. However, it’s important to note that these figures are educated guesses based on genetic analysis, and there is ongoing debate about the exact numbers

Do you think those “educated guesses” are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude? I’d be very interested in how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Did you graduate from MSU? (Making Stuff Up)
Flint and obsidian are stones. The era you indicate is literally named for them. And I assure you that igneous “stones” pre-date humans.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the survival of the species after being reduced to far fewer than a million about 70,000 y.a.?

AI:

The global human population approximately 70,000 years ago is estimated to have dropped to a critically low level, possibly between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. This event is known as a population bottleneck. Some studies suggest the population may have fallen as low as 1,000 breeding pairs. However, it’s important to note that these figures are educated guesses based on genetic analysis, and there is ongoing debate about the exact numbers

Do you think those “educated guesses” are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude? I’d be very interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Flint and obsidian are limited resources that will get mined out. Just like everything more advanced.

 

[Bomb#20]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Did you graduate from MSU? (Making Stuff Up)
Flint and obsidian are stones. The era you indicate is literally named for them. And I assure you that igneous “stones” pre-date humans.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the survival of the species after being reduced to far fewer than a million about 70,000 y.a.?

AI:

The global human population approximately 70,000 years ago is estimated to have dropped to a critically low level, possibly between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. This event is known as a population bottleneck. Some studies suggest the population may have fallen as low as 1,000 breeding pairs. However, it’s important to note that these figures are educated guesses based on genetic analysis, and there is ongoing debate about the exact numbers

Do you think those “educated guesses” are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude? I’d be very interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Flint and obsidian are limited resources that will get mined out. Just like everything more advanced.

You're assuming we'd have to go back to knapping. You need special kinds of rock for that, kinds that don't fracture in unexpected directions when you bang the rocks together. But Neolithic technology is based on grinding, not knapping. You can use basalt. There's no way we're running out of that. Neolithic population estimates are in the hundred million range. Is there some other reason besides lack of rocks for why that level isn't sustainable?

 

[Bomb#20]

What could be a better measure of human habitability then the tendency of the globe not to kill people?

It always kills everybody.

Yeah, yeah, ain't none of us getting out of here alive. I meant the tendency not to kill people prematurely.

Measuring habitability may be an intractable problem, at least in the sense with which I meant to refer to it. I apologize for that - probably could have done without listing it as certainly decreasing. But the proof will be in the pudding.

The life expectancy in 1500 wasn't 28 because most people died at 29; it was 28 because over half the people died before they were five.

Life expectancy for a 5 year old in 1500 was 60-65 years. So infant mortality wasn’t a function of the earth’s habitability as much as of humans’ knowledge of how to keep babies alive.

But even back then we knew the most important part of how to keep babies alive: feed them enough. Under conditions of adequate nutrition and no birth control pills, human populations tend to grow at 1-2% a year. The reason the population around 1025 was growing at only 0.1% a year was because most of the people were either starving or just barely staving it off. The earth's inability at that time to produce food for more than 300 million people, it seems to me, counts against its habitability.

 

[Elixir]

The earth's inability at that time to produce food for more than 300 million people, it seems to me, counts against its habitability.

I have to concede that in 2025 virtually everyone wanted more babies; they needed help on the farm and for protection; more people was better as long as they could be kept alive. And the earth’s “level of habitability” was much lower by that measure.
But the earth’s habitability hasn’t “gone up” since then IMO; people have learned how to better succeed in their efforts get babies to survive infancy, convert land to monoculture, develop life extending measures and blah blah blah.
So, more people are living and living longer due to changes in human knowledge and behavior. Nothing about earth has fundamentally changed -humans have.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Did you graduate from MSU? (Making Stuff Up)
Flint and obsidian are stones. The era you indicate is literally named for them. And I assure you that igneous “stones” pre-date humans.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the survival of the species after being reduced to far fewer than a million about 70,000 y.a.?

AI:

The global human population approximately 70,000 years ago is estimated to have dropped to a critically low level, possibly between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. This event is known as a population bottleneck. Some studies suggest the population may have fallen as low as 1,000 breeding pairs. However, it’s important to note that these figures are educated guesses based on genetic analysis, and there is ongoing debate about the exact numbers

Do you think those “educated guesses” are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude? I’d be very interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Flint and obsidian are limited resources that will get mined out. Just like everything more advanced.

You're assuming we'd have to go back to knapping. You need special kinds of rock for that, kinds that don't fracture in unexpected directions when you bang the rocks together. But Neolithic technology is based on grinding, not knapping. You can use basalt. There's no way we're running out of that. Neolithic population estimates are in the hundred million range. Is there some other reason besides lack of rocks for why that level isn't sustainable?

Most things were based on grinding. Not blades, though.

 

[bilby]

The max sustainable population with known technology is in the million range. Anything above that and we will in time need new answers. And that's a million living as cavemen.

Are you talking about planet earth, or Puerto Rico?
Perhaps you meant minimum.

No. I mean Earth and I meant maximum. Early stone age, no flint or obsidian.

Did you graduate from MSU? (Making Stuff Up)
Flint and obsidian are stones. The era you indicate is literally named for them. And I assure you that igneous “stones” pre-date humans.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the survival of the species after being reduced to far fewer than a million about 70,000 y.a.?

AI:

The global human population approximately 70,000 years ago is estimated to have dropped to a critically low level, possibly between 2,000 and 10,000 individuals. This event is known as a population bottleneck. Some studies suggest the population may have fallen as low as 1,000 breeding pairs. However, it’s important to note that these figures are educated guesses based on genetic analysis, and there is ongoing debate about the exact numbers

Do you think those “educated guesses” are off by 2-3 orders of magnitude? I’d be very interested in how you came to that conclusion.

Flint and obsidian are limited resources that will get mined out. Just like everything more advanced.

You're assuming we'd have to go back to knapping. You need special kinds of rock for that, kinds that don't fracture in unexpected directions when you bang the rocks together. But Neolithic technology is based on grinding, not knapping. You can use basalt. There's no way we're running out of that. Neolithic population estimates are in the hundred million range. Is there some other reason besides lack of rocks for why that level isn't sustainable?

Most things were based on grinding. Not blades, though.

There's no shortage of flint. In parts of England, buildings and walls are commonly built from the stuff. You can buy it for ~£600 a tonne, delivered.

Sure, flint supplies are not infinite. But 'not infinite' is a long way short of 'scarce'.