Too many people?

[Merle]

In fact it shows quite clearly that the UN predicts the world's population will reach a maximum of about 10.4 billion before going into decline:

We have been over this several times on this thread. Yes, people have predicted that population will level off. But that is only a guess. Nobody knows. That all depends on what happens in bedrooms and courtrooms (and in the back seats of cars) in the coming years. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. The recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, might tend to adjust that figure upwards.

If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then leveling off at 10.4 billion might not be adequate. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/finite-feeding-frenzy/ .

I will probably eventually write a post on population for my blog. My post 411 here (https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262) is the gist of that post. I will probably change the paragraph in question to state, "If the current birthrate (134M per year) and typical lifespans continue, population will level off at 9.6 billion." I am concerned that even that figure is too high.

 

[Merle]

In fact it shows quite clearly that the UN predicts the world's population will reach a maximum of about 10.4 billion before going into decline:

For what its worth, here is a chart I have made on what the future population would be if the number of births per year remains constant.



And here is what it would be if the number of births per year was half.




Both are approximations since I didn't have accurate figures of the current population by year of age and the life expectancy by year of age. If I get better data, I can track out the curves more accurately. The values and slopes at the ends of the curves are correct. The curves in between are an interpolation.

The second curve is my basis for stating that, in order to reduce population by 10% in 30 years, we would need to reduce the birthrate about 50%.

 

[bigfield]

We have been over this several times on this thread. Yes, people have predicted that population will level off. But that is only a guess. Nobody knows. That all depends on what happens in bedrooms and courtrooms (and in the back seats of cars) in the coming years. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. The recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, might tend to adjust that figure upwards.

I must have missed those times in this thread where you discussed the UN's projections. Feel free to link back to those posts if you don't want to repeat yourself.

I don't think it makes sense to describe the UN's projections as "just a guess". Not all predictions are of equal quality: I tend to have more confidence in the UN's analysis than someone going on their gut feeling.

I have to agree with you that "nobody knows". Of course nobody knows for 100% sure, but I will settle for a high confidence projection based on sound methods.

If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then leveling off at 10.4 billion might not be adequate. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/finite-feeding-frenzy/ .

What am I supposed to see in that blog post?

If the point is simply that we need to stop consuming fossil fuels so rapidly then I would agree, but the solution is to transition to other energy sources, regardless of whether the world's population is 8 billion, 11 billion or 5 billion.

In fact it shows quite clearly that the UN predicts the world's population will reach a maximum of about 10.4 billion before going into decline:

For what its worth, here is a chart I have made on what the future population would be if the number of births per year remains constant.

View attachment 43290

And here is what it would be if the number of births per year was half.


View attachment 43291

Both are approximations since I didn't have accurate figures of the current population by year of age and the life expectancy by year of age. If I get better data, I can track out the curves more accurately. The values and slopes at the ends of the curves are correct. The curves in between are an interpolation.

The second curve is my basis for stating that, in order to reduce population by 10% in 30 years, we would need to reduce the birthrate about 50%.

What is the purpose of these simplistic graphs?

You haven't really sourced accurate population data and you haven't made any kind of proper attempt to model fertility scenarios. Neither of your scenarios above are realistic,

If you are in need of data you might be able to find what you need here:

World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations

population.un.org

 

[Jarhyn]

I am under the impression that population alarmism of either the "TOO MANY" or the "NOT ENOUGH" variety is really an unnecessary anxiety trip.

There is no such thing as a useful recognition of either state, and both states are as discussed arbitrary.

The healthier mindset here is always going to be figuring out ways to make it work, not figuring out ways to reduce the population faster than a birth rate adjustment based on improved education and improved anti-pregnancy planning opportunities.

Yet again I'm going to pose that inciting panick is liable to result in a panick response, which means the guard rails against fascist genocide would end up being ignored. The whole point of level discussion about the topic is to keep a close eye on keeping unethical measures off the table.

The point is that nobody suggests anything brash.

Nothing approaching a timbre of panick should be any part of this conversation.

Assuming we were in overshoot, and assuming we hit the hard stop tomorrow, the correct behavior is in fact to recognize that some folks are going to suggest culling measures, and the programme we follow should be "cull those folks who bring up culling, and only those folks; if its not enough, we fall together as a community"

 

[Jayjay]

Assuming we were in overshoot, and assuming we hit the hard stop tomorrow, the correct behavior is in fact to recognize that some folks are going to suggest culling measures, and the programme we follow should be "cull those folks who bring up culling, and only those folks; if its not enough, we fall together as a community"

Exactly.

Those who are most vocal about population growth being a problem, often don't think it's a problem in their countries. Always someplace else. This is morally dubious, and also ignores the fact that there's very little USA or European countries can do about cutting down population growth in Nigeria or Bangladesh. Either those countries do something about it themselves, or their birth rates reduces as they become more affluent, but it's not like someone from the outside can waltz in and start telling the people living there how many children they should have.

 

[Jarhyn]

Assuming we were in overshoot, and assuming we hit the hard stop tomorrow, the correct behavior is in fact to recognize that some folks are going to suggest culling measures, and the programme we follow should be "cull those folks who bring up culling, and only those folks; if its not enough, we fall together as a community"

Exactly.

Those who are most vocal about population growth being a problem, often don't think it's a problem in their countries. Always someplace else. This is morally dubious, and also ignores the fact that there's very little USA or European countries can do about cutting down population growth in Nigeria or Bangladesh. Either those countries do something about it themselves, or their birth rates reduces as they become more affluent, but it's not like someone from the outside can waltz in and start telling the people living there how many children they should have.

I just... These are well known facts on the problem with well supported arguments from a number of different directions.

I'm not saying anything new or controversial here.

We must accept failure, so as to avert becoming something that should not exist for other reasons.

 

[bilby]

We have been over this several times on this thread. Yes, people have predicted that population will level off. But that is only a guess.

A projection isn't just a guess; Indeed, the entire basis for this thread is a projection (albeit an out of date one).

 

[bilby]

Nobody knows for sure what will happen. The recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, might tend to adjust that figure upwards.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has jurisdiction over about 5% of humanity. Any effect that their decisions might have on world population will be tiny, even if such a decision has a massive effect in the US - but the fact is that even the effect on US population will be slight.

As we have seen elsewhere, making abortion illegal doesn't have much effect on the numbers of abortions that take place, only on how dangerous they are for the women who have them.

 

[bilby]

If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then

...there really should be more evidence than mere suggestion.

If Jesus is returning imminently, as many suggest, then we should all repent our sins. If aliens are visiting Earth and abducting humans for anal probing, as many suggest, then we should all wear tinfoil hats. If the Earth is flat, as many suggest, then we should fund the construction of a safety fence to stop people from falling off the edge.

We need more than "many suggest" before we take a putative threat as being worthy of action. Or even unworthy of ridicule.

 

[Merle]

programme we follow should be "cull those folks who bring up culling, and only those folks; if its not enough, we fall together as a community"

I believe that you are the only person in this thread that brought up culling, yes?

Tell me again what you think we should do to people that bring up culling?

 

[Jarhyn]

programme we follow should be "cull those folks who bring up culling, and only those folks; if its not enough, we fall together as a community"

I believe that you are the only person in this thread that brought up culling, yes?

Tell me again what you think we should do to people that bring up culling?

So, you think you're clever obtusely interpreting the clear meaning between the lines of the sentence: as a viable solution.

The reason many here respond the way they do is because your rhetoric is associated with that. "Birth rate measures not enough! Population too high!"

There's only a few directions that squeeze goes "we need to reduce births"; "we need to increase deaths"; "we need to make technology that will support us".

We keep asking you to clarify which of those three you're planning on going after, and you keep not saying where the next step of this is taking you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It works when you go 100% nuclear with load absorbers.

The idea is, you scatter a bunch of systems across the grid. Each of these systems, scattered across the grid, does some kind of task for which the solution is energy + time. It can be anything from converting electricity to light, to running custom manufacturing.

It can be literally any task which you can do pretty much anywhere and which only requires electricity and simple feedstock.

Disagree on converting electricity to light. Nobody sets out to make light--you make light to light something up. Thus it's not remotely useful as a load absorber. Custom manufacturing also isn't a good case--you need people, you probably need expensive machinery.

Good load absorbers are cheap, energy intensive systems--stuff where it's quite reasonable for some of it to spend most all it's time idle. That's why I proposed cracking water as a major load absorber--it's a very simple system, you capture the outputs and so long as you have enough storage (just big tanks) you can use it at a demand-driven rate. The hydrogen will be useful as a feedstock for other chemical processes, some of the oxygen can be sent to the medical market etc, I suspect most of it gets dumped.

The light being discussed here would be "grow lamps" for hydroponics.

I suppose that's "lighting some stuff up" but not quite what I was talking about.

Those don't make good load absorbers because they need to be run to a schedule.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In fact it shows quite clearly that the UN predicts the world's population will reach a maximum of about 10.4 billion before going into decline:

We have been over this several times on this thread. Yes, people have predicted that population will level off. But that is only a guess. Nobody knows. That all depends on what happens in bedrooms and courtrooms (and in the back seats of cars) in the coming years. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. The recent Supreme Court decision, for instance, might tend to adjust that figure upwards.

So the data doesn't really matter?

The reality is that the birth rate has been plummeting as people moved to the cities and children became a cost.

 

[Jarhyn]

It works when you go 100% nuclear with load absorbers.

The idea is, you scatter a bunch of systems across the grid. Each of these systems, scattered across the grid, does some kind of task for which the solution is energy + time. It can be anything from converting electricity to light, to running custom manufacturing.

It can be literally any task which you can do pretty much anywhere and which only requires electricity and simple feedstock.

Disagree on converting electricity to light. Nobody sets out to make light--you make light to light something up. Thus it's not remotely useful as a load absorber. Custom manufacturing also isn't a good case--you need people, you probably need expensive machinery.

Good load absorbers are cheap, energy intensive systems--stuff where it's quite reasonable for some of it to spend most all it's time idle. That's why I proposed cracking water as a major load absorber--it's a very simple system, you capture the outputs and so long as you have enough storage (just big tanks) you can use it at a demand-driven rate. The hydrogen will be useful as a feedstock for other chemical processes, some of the oxygen can be sent to the medical market etc, I suspect most of it gets dumped.

The light being discussed here would be "grow lamps" for hydroponics.

I suppose that's "lighting some stuff up" but not quite what I was talking about.

Those don't make good load absorbers because they need to be run to a schedule.

Look in my previous posts. You can use scheduled load absorbers, you just need to use wear leveling strategies, and plan the load a bit. The more you have and the more excess you have the more you can granularize it.

 

[Merle]

We keep asking you to clarify which of those three you're planning on going after, and you keep not saying where the next step of this is taking you.

Wrong. I have explained my position clearly. See https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262.

There is no "next step" that you keep fantasizing about.

You can't just make stuff up about people and claim that to be legitimate debate tactics. Its not.

 

[Jarhyn]

We keep asking you to clarify which of those three you're planning on going after, and you keep not saying where the next step of this is taking you.

Wrong. I have explained my position clearly. See https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262.

There is no "next step" that you keep fantasizing about.

You can't just make stuff up about people and claim that to be legitimate debate tactics. Its not.

... You're not understanding what is being said.

There must be a next step, and you MUST be explicit about what that is or is not or else you are just screaming PANIC! Into the void and people will start picking up next steps as is their custom.

There are three next steps. You are responsible for pointing at a next step or else you are merely barking about problems and letting the listener decide.

There are three next steps. If the listener decides on them, they must pick up from one of those three next steps.

There are three next steps. One is bad, one is possibly bad, and one is good. And then I suppose "do nothing".

Without drawing a line somewhere in your rhetoric, by explicitly avoiding drawing that line every time you post about the problem, you are leaving the next step to be implied.

You are clearly not edging towards "do nothing", and while you keep saying "not monstrous" you also keep failing to say what you find monstrous.

You have posed a position, and a destination. The landscape has a number of routes, some being hazardous. It is not unmapped terrain. You must suggest a route, if you wish to be our guide.

If you do not wish to guide anyone, if you just wish to say "we must leave" without planning a destination... that is nuisance behavior.

 

[Merle]

I don't think it makes sense to describe the UN's projections as "just a guess". Not all predictions are of equal quality: I tend to have more confidence in the UN's analysis than someone going on their gut feeling.

I have to agree with you that "nobody knows". Of course nobody knows for 100% sure, but I will settle for a high confidence projection based on sound methods.

Fair enough. The United Nations makes predictions of the projected population levels. I agree.

Their predictions are based on models of the future number of births. Nobody can know what that will be. For instance, I suspect that they think poor countries will get richer, and therefore, since riches are associated with lower birth rates, the average global birth rate will come down. Both predictions might be wrong. We are bumping into limits that might prevent third world countries from significantly industrializing. And there are many other factors involved that affect which countries have high birth rates.

But even if the United Nations prediction is very accurate, it is still a problem if we are in ecological overshoot. For if we are in overshoot, then we face the possibility of collapse.

If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then leveling off at 10.4 billion might not be adequate. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/finite-feeding-frenzy/ .

What am I supposed to see in that blog post?

If the point is simply that we need to stop consuming fossil fuels so rapidly then I would agree, but the solution is to transition to other energy sources, regardless of whether the world's population is 8 billion, 11 billion or 5 billion.

Why do you ask? The point of that link was to verify the point I made in the paragraph that had the link.

Murphy demonstrates what happens if there is a time delay from the time a population overshoots until the affects of that condition overcome them.

What is the purpose of these simplistic graphs?

Again, explained in the post you responded to. The graphs project the population if the births per year remained the same (as it has for 50 years), and what would happen if that number was cut in half.

You haven't really sourced accurate population data and you haven't made any kind of proper attempt to model fertility scenarios. Neither of your scenarios above are realistic,

Again, the endpoints and slopes of both ends of the lines are accurate based on accurate data. The contour in the middle is an interpolation.

The part I don't have good data on is the range of ages of current population and the expected lifespan of people at each age. For example, how may people are 53, and what is the average expected remaining lifespan of people that are 53. I would need to know that for every age to accurately track out the middle of the curves. But, as I explained, the exact trajectory of the middle of the curves is not that critical for what I am illustrating.

If you are in need of data you might be able to find what you need here:

World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations

population.un.org

Thanks. I have been there, and yes, that is helpful. But it does not have the specific information I am looking for as I mention above.

 

[Merle]

You have posed a position, and a destination. The landscape has a number of routes, some being hazardous. It is not unmapped terrain. You must suggest a route, if you wish to be our guide.

I have explained my position clearly: See https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262.

Are we going to do what I suggest? No, I don't think so. Are we going to do something else that would be effective? No, I don't think so.

Here is what I think will happen. We will commit with all our might to business as usual. Population will rise, perhaps along the curve that the United Nations projects. Poor nations will do everything they can to industrialize, and industrialized nations will still seek to maintain ever increasing prosperity. And then we will experience the death of a thousand hockey sticks. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/.

What will I do if it all falls apart after ecological overshoot? I will shake my head in sorrow. I will tell the next generations, "At least I tried." But no, I will not turn violent. That is not my nature. That is not who I am.

 

[Jarhyn]

We keep asking you to clarify which of those three you're planning on going after, and you keep not saying where the next step of this is taking you.

Wrong. I have explained my position clearly. See https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262.

There is no "next step" that you keep fantasizing about.

You can't just make stuff up about people and claim that to be legitimate debate tactics. Its not.

... You're not understanding what is being said.

There must be a next step, and you MUST be explicit about what that is or is not or else you are just screaming PANIC! Into the void and people will start picking up next steps as is their custom.

There are three next steps. You are responsible for pointing at a next step or else you are merely barking about problems and letting the listener decide.

There are three next steps. If the listener decides on them, they must pick up from one of those three next steps.

There are three next steps. One is bad, one is possibly bad, and one is good. And then I suppose "do nothing".

Without drawing a line somewhere in your rhetoric, by explicitly avoiding drawing that line every time you post about the problem, you are leaving the next step to be implied.

You are clearly not edging towards "do nothing", and while you keep saying "not monstrous" you also keep failing to say what you find monstrous.

You have posed a position, and a destination. The landscape has a number of routes, some being hazardous. It is not unmapped terrain. You must suggest a route, if you wish to be our guide.

If you do not wish to guide anyone, if you just wish to say "we must leave" without planning a destination... that is nuisance behavior.

I have explained my position clearly: See https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262.

Are we going to do what I suggest? No, I don't think so. Are we going to do something else that would be effective? No, I don't think so.

Here is what I think will happen. We will commit with all our might to business as usual. Population will rise, perhaps along the curve that the United Nations projects. Poor nations will do everything they can to industrialize, and industrialized nations will still seek to maintain ever increasing prosperity. And then we will experience the death of a thousand hockey sticks. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/.

What will I do if it all falls apart after ecological overshoot? I will shake my head in sorrow. I will tell the next generations, "At least I tried." But no, I will not turn violent. That is not my nature. That is not who I am.

The problem here is that it was discussed very early in the thread what solutions, and that while YOU may not be violent, people who ARE read your posts very differently, prior to page 21.

This is not a problem that is actually served by talking overmuch about the problem, and is better served by directly pushing solutions, which all happen to be good things in their own right (education, personal empowerment, personal control over family planing, technology research, and making industrialization accessible).

 

[Jayjay]

The light being discussed here would be "grow lamps" for hydroponics.


I suppose that's "lighting some stuff up" but not quite what I was talking about.

Those don't make good load absorbers because they need to be run to a schedule.

Greenhouses are already being used to balance loads in electric grid. Not by lighting them up, but shutting them down on a short notice. Plants can survive a few minutes in the dark, and greenhouses get compensated for the readiness to turn the lights off when needed.