Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Our unrestrained economic and population growth will eventually collapse.

We are seeing indication with COVID. COVID is relatively harmless, but we see what happens when w crowd 9n cities like LA and NYC. Another pathogen could decimate population.

Something has to give. The economy as is does not really support a large part of the population. Mny live paycheck to paycheck. Any interruption in the system and people go hungry and homeless.

What happens when an animal loses all of its food and habitat? What happens to an animal population when it loses 95 percent of its food and habitat? The Ivory Bill is extinct because we cut down all the trees that it required for survival and cleared the land that provided it with the grubs and larvae that was its food supply. The Pileated Woodpecker, on the other hand, because its diet was largely carpenter ants survived.

What happens if Homo bilbyens loses 95 percent of its house and 95 percent of its food supply? What happens to Homo bilbyens if we give it plenty of food in the form of hay and grasshoppers instead of its preferred diet? We just let other species use his food and habitat and expect him to thrive on 100 calories a day and live in a 20 square foot house? And btw, we also get rid of 95% of his roads and reduce his energy demands by 95% so he has to get by with 5% of what he used to, and fill his water supply with bird and buffalo droppings. And we also scatter those meager resources out into little patches everywhere.

According to Homo bilbyens there isn't any problem. Of course, Homo bilbyens isn't on the short end of that stick so it doesn't matter that that is precisely what Homo bilbyens has done to most of the other species on the planet.

There are lots of problems. There's little evidence that simple population numbers are particularly important as a cause of any of those problems.

If I was as uninterested and dismissive and uninformed as you I would think the same thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not one of the persons going on about overpopulation. I think I mentioned "overshoot" earlier, but I never sided with people going on about overpopulation. Why I posted was this: skepticalbip was talking about bird extinctions like they're something in the past. So I posted to say they're a current problem.

Talking of extinctions is talking of the past. What I was pointing out was that the assumption that it was always caused by human made habitat loss was an error. Many of them were caused by human activity but that activity was human predation, and I listed several of them.

Now the matter of declining populations is another matter. First it has to be determined if it is really a 'problem' or natural variation as one species displaces another species as has happened as long as there has been critters. If it isn't natural variation then the question becomes what the cause is.

In the case of the bald eagle when it was endangered, it was determined that the cause was people killing them thinking of them as threatening their chickens, lambs, etc. not loss of habitat. The solution was then to outlaw killing bald eagles and the population rebounded.

When someone who had apparently never been in a southern swamp decided to put alligators on the threatened list, the population exploded and a culling program had to be started to protect both the alligators and those living near those swamps.

When the ivory billed woodpecker was put on the endangered list, they decided to go much further than outlawing killing one as was done with the bald eagle. They made a draconian decision to not allow anyone to use any land where a sighting was reported (to protect the habitat). This led people who would otherwise enjoy sharing their land with an ivory billed woodpecker to resort to a "kill and bury" strategy to insure that no one reported seeing the woodpecker on their land.

In effect, many people start with the answer of human caused habitat loss then any thing they see that they want to be otherwise is seen as a problem caused by the answer they begin with.

 

[bilby]

There are lots of problems. There's little evidence that simple population numbers are particularly important as a cause of any of those problems.

If I was as uninterested and dismissive and uninformed as you I would think the same thing.

I am both interested and informed. That I am dismissive is a consequence of my understanding that population growth is a solved problem, and that raw population numbers are a trivial part of the remaining problems - and a part that is particularly difficult to address without extremely ugly and immoral actions.

We should concentrate on mimimising the impact of people on the environment, and should stop worrying about how many of them there are, because we cannot ethically do anything more about it than has already been done, and we don't need to do any more anyway.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Talking of extinctions is talking of the past. What I was pointing out was that the assumption that it was always caused by human made habitat loss was an error. Many of them were caused by human activity but that activity was human predation, and I listed several of them.

Perhaps it's a semantic issue. If a predator enters my habitat that wasn't there before and I succumb to the predation, it seems my habitat has been compromised. Obviously the Dodo, like other animals was hunted to extinction. How did it come to be hunted to extinction, but that another animal, us, began to populate its habitat. It's really an academic discussion as to whether it was hunted to extinction or suffered from loss of habitat.

Rats and feral cats are exotic predators, just like humans, in many environments in which they are not native. Interestingly enough, the return of native coyote in my area has put a serious hit on feral cat populations, but is negatively affecting deer populations because the fawn are easily preyed upon by the coyote. The only predator above the coyote is us, no mountain lion or wolf to keep their populations in check anymore. So hunting coyote is allowed 365/24/7.

But all that imbalance is caused by another animal, us, invading the habitat and living there, making it unlivable for some of those natives. Are those native species suffering from loss of habitat or from human predation?

 

[bilby]

Talking of extinctions is talking of the past. What I was pointing out was that the assumption that it was always caused by human made habitat loss was an error. Many of them were caused by human activity but that activity was human predation, and I listed several of them.

Perhaps it's a semantic issue. If a predator enters my habitat that wasn't there before and I succumb to the predation, it seems my habitat has been compromised. Obviously the Dodo, like other animals was hunted to extinction. How did it come to be hunted to extinction, but that another animal, us, began to populate its habitat. It's really an academic discussion as to whether it was hunted to extinction or suffered from loss of habitat.

Rats and feral cats are exotic predators, just like humans, in many environments in which they are not native. Interestingly enough, the return of native coyote in my area has put a serious hit on feral cat populations, but is negatively affecting deer populations because the fawn are easily preyed upon by the coyote. The only predator above the coyote is us, no mountain lion or wolf to keep their populations in check anymore. So hunting coyote is allowed 365/24/7.

But all that imbalance is caused by another animal, us, invading the habitat and living there, making it unlivable for some of those natives. Are those native species suffering from loss of habitat or from human predation?

There were about 600 million humans when the Dodo was hunted to extinction. At the time, little concern was given to the impact of humans on other species.

A rare species discovered today would immediately be granted a stack of legal protections intended to prevent its extinction, deliberate or accidental. Had such protections been a feature of the seventeenth century, we might well still have Dodos today.

That humans are responsible for this and many other extinctions is not in question. But it's clear that despite a population figure around the 8.5 billion mark today, humanity is less likely to cause such events than the ~600 million at the end of the C17th were, so this data is pretty solid evidence AGAINST the claim that having a larger total human population is a cause of extinctions.

If we are to accept the principle that the extinction of the Dodo is a symptom of "overpopulation", then we can see that the maximum possible human population conversant with avoiding this is fewer than 600 million. What means could we possibly employ to reduce population numbers below that level? Genocide on a hitherto unimagined scale strikes me as undesirable, as does the forced sterilisation of the vast majority of people; But no other means to achieve such population numbers is going to work.

And that 600 million is an upper bound (if we accept that sheer population numbers are the only, or even a major, factor).

Of course, the success of CITES and other national and international laws and treaties strongly suggests that "overpopulation" is not a cause of the problem, nor population reductions a solution to it.

We can and should ignore the total population number; Give people the freedom to make their own choices about family size; and take appropriate steps to protect our environment, rather than wasting time and energy worrying about an unsolvable non-problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If we equate habitat with an area of land then there is never loss of habitat, which seems to be what a lot of persons are arguing. The fact is that when we as humans significantly impact that area of land so that it becomes unfit for native populations and ecosystems to survive then for all intents and purposes the habitat has been lost. It doesn't matter if it is a riparian zone polluted with our effluent or an airport runway. In survival terms those areas have been compromised by the arrival of another animal. Now it's that other animal's area of land.

Similarly, if I manicure the area around my house and plant it with exotic species that have no biomass value for native populations, despite the fact that it is green and flowery and growing, that area has been lost as habitat for the caterpillars, birds, turtles and other native species because their food supply is gone. It's a green desert.

To connect this to the questions posed in the OP, then yes, humans that do this see themselves as distinct from the environment upon which they depend.

 

[southernhybrid]

I am not knowledgable enough to know much about the claims of the scientist in the article that I am about to link, but according to her, human infertility has been rising drastically and due to our usage of certain chemicals we may well be heading for our own demise as a species. So, maybe all these fears of over population are unwarranted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/books/review/shanna-swan-count-down.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

If you’ve smugly enjoyed the dystopian worlds of “The Handmaid’s Tale” (where infertility is triggered in part by environmental pollutants) or “Children of Men” (where humanity is on the precipice of extinction) — and believed that these stories were rooted firmly in fantasy — Shanna Swan’s “Count Down” will serve as an awakening.

“Count Down,” which Swan wrote with the health and science journalist Stacey Colino, chronicles rising human infertility and warns of dire consequences for our species if this trend doesn’t slow. The reason, Swan explains, may be growing exposure to “endocrine disrupting chemicals” that are found in everything from plastics, flame retardants, electronics, food packaging and pesticides to personal care products and cosmetics.

She outlines the danger. These substances interfere with normal hormonal function, including testosterone and estrogen. Even in small doses, they pose particular danger to unborn babies and young children whose bodies are growing rapidly. These hormone-warping chemicals, which can enter even the placenta, have the ability to alter the anatomical development of girls and boys, change brain function and impair the immune system.

A study Swan cites in “Count Down” found that just over a quarter of men experiencing erectile dysfunction were under 40. That may be, in part, because testosterone levels have been dropping at 1 percent per year since 1982. The outlook for women isn’t good either. The miscarriage rate has risen by 1 percent per year over the last two decades. If these trajectories continue, in vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive technologies may become a widely needed tool for conceiving children.

Swan distills information harvested from hundreds of published studies and while some ring familiar, the conclusion she reaches hits hard. These chemicals are limiting the ability of current and future generations to have children. They could, ultimately, snuff out the human species altogether.

I thought this was an interesting contrast to some of the fears and claims posted in this thread. Perhaps some are worrying about the wrong thing. Then again, perhaps nature would benefit from the demise of the human species. It's not like we've added anything positive to the natural world in recent generations.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Overpopulation is a stupid idea. It was a reasonable fear in the mid to late twentieth century, but it's long since been resolved.

I have some questions:
1) Does this apply to other species, or only humans? Can wolves be overpopulated? What about elephants? Malaria?

2) How was this 'resolved' and when? Please be specific.

 

[fromderinside]

I think bilby is aware of the deer population boom and subsequent starvation result in Arizona after harvesting wolves there. What I don't know about his assertion is whether he accepts the idea that there are limits to the supportability of niches or whether he is speaking re: working within a range of conditions of supply and population over a specific interval.

 

[bilby]

Overpopulation is a stupid idea. It was a reasonable fear in the mid to late twentieth century, but it's long since been resolved.

I have some questions:
1) Does this apply to other species, or only humans? Can wolves be overpopulated? What about elephants? Malaria?

Only humans*, and only since the middle of the C20th, for reasons that will be obvious from my next answer.

2) How was this 'resolved' and when? Please be specific.

The invention of the oral contraceptive pill in the 1950s, and its introduction from 1960 onwards.

Prior to the availability of the pill, contraception was often ineffective (and it only needs to fail on average three times per woman for birthrates to necessarily exceed replacement levels). Having a contraceptive that is in the control of women, is applied daily (and not 'in the heat of the moment '), and can be used in confidence, so that the woman who has to bear the child is not unduly influenced by her partner's wishes, leads inevitably to below replacement level birthrates.

Even more so if those women have at least some education, and some wealth above the subsistence farmer level.

This isn't hypothetical; It's observed to have occurred worldwide wherever the contraceptive pill is available.

It's not hyperbole, given the growth rate of population in the early C20th, to say that the oral contraceptive is the invention that saved the world.





*Well, almost. Oral contraceptives are sometimes used in baits as a humane alternative to culling for non-human mammals.

 

[J842P]

I realize that humans have been making big changes to the ecology for thousands of years. But I'll need a cite for "more of it." Whether measured by acreage of land transformed by man or number of species driven extinct, man's negative influence on ecology is bigger than ever now, and getting worse.

Don't have a cite but my best guess would be loss of habitat. Human animals, as their population expands, destroy the habitats of other organisms. Some species can coexist, some even experience population increases and are better off, but generally the cost of loss of habitat is loss of species.

No.

Human animals, as their range expands, do this.

It mostly happened back in the distant past, when total population of humans was minuscule compared to today.

Adding another million people to Shanghai or Mumbai makes very little difference. Adding a billionaire to California makes more, but not much more. A handful of people crossing the Timor Sea with their dogs 40,000 years ago wiped out vast numbers of species. The same happened in the Americas a few thousand years later.

Human impact on our environment has very little to do with raw population numbers.

Well, I get your point but you are oversimplifying. It's the range and population density that matters. A handful of hunter gatherers, even if their range was the entire continent, would not have lead to the extinction of the megafauna (assuming the human predation hypothesis is correct).

 

[Politesse]

(assuming the human predation hypothesis is correct)

Quite an assumption, I've always thought. Considering the late Pleistocene megafauna suffered in regions where humans were seemingly absent, just as well as in places where humans were numerous.

As with Malthus, some theories just seem to stick around by their own memetic pull, too irrestible not to repeat once you hear them, whether or not they can withstand true logical scrutiny.

 

[skepticalbip]

(assuming the human predation hypothesis is correct)

Quite an assumption, I've always thought. Considering the late Pleistocene megafauna suffered in regions where humans were seemingly absent, just as well as in places where humans were numerous.

As with Malthus, some theories just seem to stick around by their own memetic pull, too irrestible not to repeat once you hear them, whether or not they can withstand true logical scrutiny.

Blaming human predation for megafauna extinction is certainly not a certainty but isn't a far fetched theory. Population numbers of large animals run much lower than smaller animals. Length of time to reach maturity is longer for large animals than smaller animals. Also gestation periods for large animals are considerably longer than smaller animals (e.g. elephant gestation runs ~22 months, rats' gestation ~1 month. elephant age of maturity ~12 years; rat's age of maturity ~2 months). Predation of two to four mammoth per year for a couple centuries out of a an original heard of a hundred could quite conceivably reduce that heard population below its ability to continue. There would, of course, be other herds but there would also be other small bands of hunters preying on them.

 

[Politesse]

(assuming the human predation hypothesis is correct)

Quite an assumption, I've always thought. Considering the late Pleistocene megafauna suffered in regions where humans were seemingly absent, just as well as in places where humans were numerous.

As with Malthus, some theories just seem to stick around by their own memetic pull, too irrestible not to repeat once you hear them, whether or not they can withstand true logical scrutiny.

Blaming human predation for megafauna extinction is certainly not a certainty but isn't a far fetched theory. Population numbers of large animals run much lower than smaller animals. Length of time to reach maturity is longer for large animals than smaller animals. Also gestation periods for large animals are considerably longer than smaller animals (e.g. elephant gestation runs ~22 months, rats' gestation ~1 month. elephant age of maturity ~12 years; rat's age of maturity ~2 months). Predation of two to four mammoth per year for a couple centuries out of a an original heard of a hundred could quite conceivably reduce that heard population below its ability to continue. There would, of course, be other herds but there would also be other small bands of hunters preying on them.

We may have different notions of what constitutes hypothesis testing. Regardless, you are not really contradicting my point. Armchair anthropology, it's a thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Blaming human predation for megafauna extinction is certainly not a certainty but isn't a far fetched theory. Population numbers of large animals run much lower than smaller animals. Length of time to reach maturity is longer for large animals than smaller animals. Also gestation periods for large animals are considerably longer than smaller animals (e.g. elephant gestation runs ~22 months, rats' gestation ~1 month. elephant age of maturity ~12 years; rat's age of maturity ~2 months). Predation of two to four mammoth per year for a couple centuries out of a an original heard of a hundred could quite conceivably reduce that heard population below its ability to continue. There would, of course, be other herds but there would also be other small bands of hunters preying on them.

We may have different notions of what constitutes hypothesis testing. Regardless, you are not really contradicting my point. Armchair anthropology, it's a thing.

Such a hypothesis testing only requires a reasonable estimate of replacement rate vs. kill rate. Surely you are not denying that megafauna were prey for early hunters are you?

 

[Politesse]

Blaming human predation for megafauna extinction is certainly not a certainty but isn't a far fetched theory. Population numbers of large animals run much lower than smaller animals. Length of time to reach maturity is longer for large animals than smaller animals. Also gestation periods for large animals are considerably longer than smaller animals (e.g. elephant gestation runs ~22 months, rats' gestation ~1 month. elephant age of maturity ~12 years; rat's age of maturity ~2 months). Predation of two to four mammoth per year for a couple centuries out of a an original heard of a hundred could quite conceivably reduce that heard population below its ability to continue. There would, of course, be other herds but there would also be other small bands of hunters preying on them.

We may have different notions of what constitutes hypothesis testing. Regardless, you are not really contradicting my point. Armchair anthropology, it's a thing.

Such a hypothesis testing only requires a reasonable estimate of replacement rate vs. kill rate. Surely you are not denying that megafauna were prey for early hunters are you?

Then yes, we have different ideas about hypothesis testing, at least in archaeology. I am more interested in empirical evidence than hand-waving projections of the "plausible". And again, not actually off topic, as this is what people do with Malthus as well. "Oh, but isn't it possible? You can't deny that it's possible..." No, I don't deny that the hypothesis is conceivable. I just don't think it is likely. But I don't care as much about the mammoth debate, since it has less ugly reprecussions on living human beings if people want to believe it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Such a hypothesis testing only requires a reasonable estimate of replacement rate vs. kill rate. Surely you are not denying that megafauna were prey for early hunters are you?

Then yes, we have different ideas about hypothesis testing, at least in archaeology. I am more interested in empirical evidence than hand-waving projections of the "plausible". And again, not actually off topic, as this is what people do with Malthus as well. "Oh, but isn't it possible? You can't deny that it's possible..." No, I don't deny that the hypothesis is conceivable. I just don't think it is likely. But I don't care as much about the mammoth debate, since it has less ugly reprecussions on living human beings if people want to believe it.

Interesting tactic there. Don't actually criticize or argue the estimated possible numbers as unreasonable and offering more reasonable numbers but attack the competition as being the same as an ignorant Malthusian.

ETA: you may note that I didn't claim that this is what happened but that it is not a far fetched hypothesis.

 

[Politesse]

Such a hypothesis testing only requires a reasonable estimate of replacement rate vs. kill rate. Surely you are not denying that megafauna were prey for early hunters are you?

Then yes, we have different ideas about hypothesis testing, at least in archaeology. I am more interested in empirical evidence than hand-waving projections of the "plausible". And again, not actually off topic, as this is what people do with Malthus as well. "Oh, but isn't it possible? You can't deny that it's possible..." No, I don't deny that the hypothesis is conceivable. I just don't think it is likely. But I don't care as much about the mammoth debate, since it has less ugly reprecussions on living human beings if people want to believe it.

Interesting tactic there. Don't actually criticize or argue the estimated possible numbers as unreasonable and offering more reasonable numbers but attack the competition as being the same as an ignorant Malthusian.

ETA: you may note that I didn't claim that this is what happened but that it is not a far fetched hypothesis.

I already explained why I don't find the hypothesis likely. The distribution of the human population should be relevant if we were the primary stressor causing extinction. Establishing that it is possible to drive a mammoth herd to extinction is not the same thing as establishing that it actually happened. To answer that, we should absolutely be looking to the real fossil record.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am not knowledgable enough to know much about the claims of the scientist in the article that I am about to link, but according to her, human infertility has been rising drastically and due to our usage of certain chemicals we may well be heading for our own demise as a species. So, maybe all these fears of over population are unwarranted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/books/review/shanna-swan-count-down.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

If you’ve smugly enjoyed the dystopian worlds of “The Handmaid’s Tale” (where infertility is triggered in part by environmental pollutants) or “Children of Men” (where humanity is on the precipice of extinction) — and believed that these stories were rooted firmly in fantasy — Shanna Swan’s “Count Down” will serve as an awakening.

“Count Down,” which Swan wrote with the health and science journalist Stacey Colino, chronicles rising human infertility and warns of dire consequences for our species if this trend doesn’t slow. The reason, Swan explains, may be growing exposure to “endocrine disrupting chemicals” that are found in everything from plastics, flame retardants, electronics, food packaging and pesticides to personal care products and cosmetics.

She outlines the danger. These substances interfere with normal hormonal function, including testosterone and estrogen. Even in small doses, they pose particular danger to unborn babies and young children whose bodies are growing rapidly. These hormone-warping chemicals, which can enter even the placenta, have the ability to alter the anatomical development of girls and boys, change brain function and impair the immune system.

A study Swan cites in “Count Down” found that just over a quarter of men experiencing erectile dysfunction were under 40. That may be, in part, because testosterone levels have been dropping at 1 percent per year since 1982. The outlook for women isn’t good either. The miscarriage rate has risen by 1 percent per year over the last two decades. If these trajectories continue, in vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive technologies may become a widely needed tool for conceiving children.

Swan distills information harvested from hundreds of published studies and while some ring familiar, the conclusion she reaches hits hard. These chemicals are limiting the ability of current and future generations to have children. They could, ultimately, snuff out the human species altogether.

I thought this was an interesting contrast to some of the fears and claims posted in this thread. Perhaps some are worrying about the wrong thing. Then again, perhaps nature would benefit from the demise of the human species. It's not like we've added anything positive to the natural world in recent generations.

I felt this interesting post was worth a re-post.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am not knowledgable enough to know much about the claims of the scientist in the article that I am about to link, but according to her, human infertility has been rising drastically and due to our usage of certain chemicals we may well be heading for our own demise as a species. So, maybe all these fears of over population are unwarranted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/books/review/shanna-swan-count-down.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage








I thought this was an interesting contrast to some of the fears and claims posted in this thread. Perhaps some are worrying about the wrong thing. Then again, perhaps nature would benefit from the demise of the human species. It's not like we've added anything positive to the natural world in recent generations.

I felt this interesting post was worth a re-post.

Definitely a good post. I thought this bit of the article worth noting:

Swan describes the collateral damage caused by a combination of lifestyle factors — such as stress or bad diet — and daily exposure to toxic chemicals. The effects can radiate down through several generations.

And as noted in the article, these chemicals affect all organisms, not only humans. Natural selection marches on.