Too many people?

[Merle]

And only ONE preferring a planet of 2b.

When it comes to civilization, to be or not to be, that is the question.

 

[Merle]

As a hypothetical, I certainly favor a sustainable relationship with the earth, whether there are 5 or 10 billion humans on it.

I will take that as a vote for option b.

Given the hypothetical question, I find the following vote so far:

a) I would prefer 10 billion population and inevitable collapse of society: 0 votes
b) I would prefer 5 billion in a sustainable society for millions of years: 4 votes

But we aren't talking about a hypothetical situation. We're talking about the inaccurate claims made by overpopulation pseudoscience, which are meant to describe the real world.

I have given you multiple links that show that the science says otherwise. (e.g. https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-23#post-1103803)

 

[Elixir]

There are plenty of inaccurate claims, claims that are accurate but misleading, claims that are supportable but only tangentially, etc.
I strongly suspect that “overpopulation” is a phantom - it would be a brutally self correcting condition if it existed. There is obvious calamitous stuff we can and do try to plan for, but slow degradation of the environment will decrease the carrying capacity of a closed biosystem so I figure that’s more likely. Whether there’s a tipping point where the planet becomes inimical to human life, I have no idea. But that would be a worst case scenario in the geologic short term, short of a major impact event a la Chixilub. Meanwhile technology can mitigate a lot of the loss of human carrying capacity, and the effects of yet to be deployed technologies can’t be quantified. I figure we’re okay up to 25-30 billion if we get lucky and really push it. Not sure I’d want to live there.

 

[Merle]

There are plenty of inaccurate claims, claims that are accurate but misleading, claims that are supportable but only tangentially, etc.

Of course. But just because some claims are false, that does not mean all claims are false. I believe the sources I gave are supported by science.

I strongly suspect that “overpopulation” is a phantom - it would be a brutally self correcting condition if it existed.

Not true. Ecological overshoot can have serious repercussions. See https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2021/05/why-worry-about-collapse/ and https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/finite-feeding-frenzy/

 

[Merle]

Population is a red herring that is being used to mask the real culprits of environmental devastation, unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us.

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

Here are some leading organization that talk of the problems of overpopulation.

Earth Overshoot: Sustainability Starts with Us

Learn how personal actions can help bring our planet back into balance and create a world of human well-being and flourishing biodiversity.

www.earthovershoot.org

Population Matters

Our vision is of a future in which our population co-exists in harmony with nature and prospers on a healthy planet, to the benefit of all.

populationmatters.org

Post Carbon Institute

Leading the transition to a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable world.

www.postcarbon.org

Peak Prosperity – Information you can't afford to live without

Information you can't afford to live without

peakprosperity.com

https://www.overshootday.org/

Home - MAHB

Wanted: A New Home for the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) Dear friends of the MAHB, The time has come for the MAHB to find a new home. We are looking for an organization/group that would like to take the MAHB to a new level by fostering this dynamic platform for global […]

mahb.stanford.edu

Homepage - Club of Rome

15 November 2019 -

clubofrome.org

Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

The steady state economy is the sustainable alternative to the ravages of growth in the 21st century. Help get us there—join CASSE today!

steadystate.org

 

[TomC]

you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

I can't give you names, but they're generally known as Republicans.

They often point out that China is the world's largest emitter of climate changing gases. What they won't talk about is the history of such emissions, who pumped all that crap into the air for over a century. Or the fact that, with a population of around 5X that of the USA, their current emissions are less than a quarter per capita of current USA emissions.
That sort of thing is blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich. And therefore refusing to cut emissions here in the USA.
Tom

 

[Merle]

you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

I can't give you names, but they're generally known as Republicans.

They often point out that China is the world's largest emitter of climate changing gases. What they won't talk about is the history of such emissions, who pumped all that crap into the air for over a century. Or the fact that, with a population of around 5X that of the USA, their current emissions are less than a quarter per capita of current USA emissions.
That sort of thing is blaming the poor for the crimes of the rich. And therefore refusing to cut emissions here in the USA.
Tom

True, but I don't think that was what the post I was replying to meant.

That post claimed efforts to address population are actually attacks on poor people. That is not what the ecological overshoot awareness movement is all ability. They put emphasis on the ecological problems we are having, and condemn the practices of rich, exploitive countries, as well as addressing overpopulation.

 

[TomC]

That post claimed efforts to address population are actually attacks on poor people.

They often are.

It isn't hard to understand. Poor people pop out babies faster than wealthier folks. That's pretty common knowledge.
Tom

 

[Merle]

They often are.

Again, can you give me the name of any organization concerned about population that is specifically targeting poor nations? Yes, they mention population, and yes, poor nations tend to be likely to have faster growing populations, but as I see it, the emphasis is not on making just those poor countries change. Rather, it is a balanced approach, with most of the efforts directed at richer nations.

So with all this talk about genocidal organizations using population concerns as a means of harming poor countries, I wander if somebody can give me a name of an organization today that is actively doing what is claimed.

 

[Politesse]

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

That is literally why Malthusian "theory" was invented in the first place, in the form of an argumentative essay for why all forms of welfare for the poor needed to cease. And even if the masks modern eugenicists wear are different, the overpopulation hype is always aimed at the poor, as they have larger family sizes the world round. It is targeting the only form of wealth that the very poor have, in fact - their families.

If the concern is environmental devastation, the focus should be on the causes of environmental devastation, to which question "too many people are alive" is a false and dangerous answer. If the problem is poverty, then we should be addressing the causes of income inequality, not blaming the victims for being poor, or "too numerous", a false and dangerous answer.

If there are eleven people and eleven apples, and the problem is that Bob has ten of them and everyone needs an apple a day to survive, the correct answer isn't "kill everyone except Bob and one other person".

 

[Elixir]

.

I strongly suspect that “overpopulation” is a phantom - it would be a brutally self correcting condition if it existed.

Not true. Ecological overshoot can have serious repercussions.

From humans’ perspective, sure. But life is resilient.

 

[bilby]

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

Extinction Rebellion.

 

[Merle]

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

Extinction Rebellion.

Wait what?

So in other words, after all the spilled ink on this thread attacking people that were concerned about overpopulation as being eugenicists, you cannot find a single organization that actually does what is claimed? So all this spilled ink has been about a false claim for which you have no evidence?

I checked out Extinction Rebellion on Wikipedia. I can't find one place where it even mentions that this group is concerned about population, let alone controlling population through eugenics.

So I went to the group's website: https://rebellion.global/ . Again, a quick scan finds no mention of overpopulation. So where exactly are you finding that this group promotes overpopulation-fueled eugenics?

They are a grassroots organization, so perhaps there is someone in the group doing such things in the name of the group, but I haven't found it. Can you please point me to the place where an active participant in Extinction Rebellion is supporting policies of genocide?

The organization is mainly concerned about climate change and species extinctions. Their solutions are often simplistic. After all, they are a grassroots organization, so we shouldn't be turning to them for sophisticated discussions of science. For instance, they strongly recommend solar power, without realizing the huge environmental impacts of solar power. See, for instance, this criticism of the group's ignoring the devastating effects of mining operations that support green technology -- https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...crisis-bhp-mining-coal-colombia-a9167601.html .

I find a list of criticisms of the group on Wikipedia, but find nobody that says they are supporting eugenic population control. Do you want to be the first person that adds this criticism to Wikipedia (with supporting documentation, of course)?

One criticism of the group is that they do mass protests expecting to be arrested, knowing that, being white, they are likely to be set free. Racial minorities might not be so lucky if they were arrested during a protest. So that has upset some racial minorities. But I see none of them mentioning that oh, by the way, this group also supports eugenics.

So after all this talk about organizations that are concerned with overpopulation being eugenic, you find zero actual support for the claim?

Yes, if you do a google search for "overpopulation eugenics" or "evolution eugenics" you will find a lot of accusations that these sciences are associated with eugenics. The fact that people might misuse a science does not mean that the science is wrong. I know of no major group spreading the evidence for evolution or ecological overshoot that is also involved in any way in supporting eugenics. I gave you several links of organizations concerned about overpopulation. If you find support there for eugenics, please show me where. You have failed to name a single example of that claim.

If you deliberately attack people with false claims, that is known as libel. Please do not practice libel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[

If you had to choose between the following two options, which would you choose? 10 billion people that overwhelm the Earth and send humanity into the stone age this century, or a population of 5 billion people that live sustainably on the planet for millions of years?"

The problem is that your second option does not work. Your 5 billion will probably last about twice as long as your 10 billion.

No, that is not true. If we are at sustainable levels, then the Earth absorbs our impact and repairs itself as things go along. As such, things could continue until something else changes, such as the Sun burning out.

In ecological overshoot, the Earth is not able to handle the impact. It then can experience things like global warming, ocean acidification, loss of species, etc. If these conditions continue, they reduce Earth's ability to respond, and the situation keeps getting worse. That is the whole idea behind ecological overshoot.

My point is that it is better to stress the Earth at sustainable levels, with thousands of generations then enjoying this planet.

I want to see many trillions of people on Earth. I just don't think they all need to be here at the same time.

So that is the point of the question you evaded. If you had to choose between "10 billion people that overwhelm the Earth and send humanity into the stone age this century, or a population of 5 billion people that live sustainably on the planet for millions of years," which would you choose?

We can't support 5 billion for an extended period with current technology. Resources are being consumed that can't be replaced.

 

[Elixir]

We can't support 5 billion for an extended period with current technology. Resources are being consumed that can't be replaced.

Zackly. Even 2 billion would be a stretch in a century or few. But technology WILL evolve; what we don't know is what the impact of tech evolution will be after X years.

 

[Merle]

That is literally why Malthusian "theory" was invented in the first place, in the form of an argumentative essay for why all forms of welfare for the poor needed to cease.

Sorry, but attacking the science of ecological overshoot or evolution by attacking Malthus or Darwin as racist simply is not a legitimate way to resolve science. People have argued both for and against Malthus and Darwin being racist. I don't think the charges against them are legitimate, but when it comes to determining science, one cannot simply accuse somebody that favored that view as being racist and then use that as an excuse to ignore any science in that field. That is a fallacy.

Do you think we can resolve the science of evolution or ecological overshoot by examining whether Malthus or Darwin were racist?

I think it is clear that Malthus was motivated by a concern for future suffering in future famines. He did not foresee the effects of the Industrial Revolution or the Green Revolution, so his timing was way off. He also did not foresee that fossil fuels could drive human population far above the carrying capacity of the Earth, potentially leading to a disaster far worse than Malthus envisioned. But he was not wrong that humans can reach the limits of a finite world.

It is true that Malthus expressed some opposition to a social program to help the poor, but he was emphatic in a later edition that he did not intend that to condemn all such programs. Writing against a government program to help the poor does not make Malthus a racist, any more than objecting to the extent of government spending on safety nets makes any person a racist. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population

And even if the masks modern eugenicists wear are different, the overpopulation hype is always aimed at the poor, as they have larger family sizes the world round. It is targeting the only form of wealth that the very poor have, in fact - their families.

Again, I have given you links to multiple sites that are concerned about overpopulation. I asked you for the name of one organization that does what you claim. I note that you did not list one. Can you list an organization I view as credible that you think is racist?

If the concern is environmental devastation, the focus should be on the causes of environmental devastation, to which question "too many people are alive" is a false and dangerous answer.

I have explained multiple times on this thread why population is a factor. You simply pretend I did not say anything, and repeat the same refuted statement.

If there are eleven people and eleven apples, and the problem is that Bob has ten of them and everyone needs an apple a day to survive, the correct answer isn't "kill everyone except Bob and one other person".

What is the solution? Take 10 apples from Bob and give them to the other 10 people?

How many Americans would go along with the solution that we take away all American wealth above the global average, and share that with the rest of the world so everybody has the same wealth? Have you thought this one through?

Jared Diamond tells of an Island in the Pacific that could safely sustain 1200 people. The inhabitants knew that, so when they reached this limit, they all knew they were responsible to do what was needed to prevent more births. That is a better analogy to the situation we are in.

 

[Merle]

We can't support 5 billion for an extended period with current technology. Resources are being consumed that can't be replaced.

That is basically what I have been saying. I think we may be fine with a population of 5 billion at today's technology and level of affluence until cheap renewable energy runs out, then we may need to reduce to 2 billion.

Yes, new technologies will make things better. But increasing affluence will put more stress on the planet. As I have been saying, the best I expect out of technology is that gains in technology make up for the rising average level of affluence. I hope I am wrong, and technology does better than I expect.

 

[bilby]

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

Extinction Rebellion.

Wait what?

So in other words, after all the spilled ink on this thread attacking people that were concerned about overpopulation as being eugenicists, you cannot find a single organization that actually does what is claimed? So all this spilled ink has been about a false claim for which you have no evidence?

I checked out Extinction Rebellion on Wikipedia. I can't find one place where it even mentions that this group is concerned about population, let alone controlling population through eugenics.

So I went to the group's website: https://rebellion.global/ . Again, a quick scan finds no mention of overpopulation. So where exactly are you finding that this group promotes overpopulation-fueled eugenics?

They are a grassroots organization, so perhaps there is someone in the group doing such things in the name of the group, but I haven't found it. Can you please point me to the place where an active participant in Extinction Rebellion is supporting policies of genocide?

The organization is mainly concerned about climate change and species extinctions. Their solutions are often simplistic. After all, they are a grassroots organization, so we shouldn't be turning to them for sophisticated discussions of science. For instance, they strongly recommend solar power, without realizing the huge environmental impacts of solar power. See, for instance, this criticism of the group's ignoring the devastating effects of mining operations that support green technology -- https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...crisis-bhp-mining-coal-colombia-a9167601.html .

I find a list of criticisms of the group on Wikipedia, but find nobody that says they are supporting eugenic population control. Do you want to be the first person that adds this criticism to Wikipedia (with supporting documentation, of course)?

One criticism of the group is that they do mass protests expecting to be arrested, knowing that, being white, they are likely to be set free. Racial minorities might not be so lucky if they were arrested during a protest. So that has upset some racial minorities. But I see none of them mentioning that oh, by the way, this group also supports eugenics.

So after all this talk about organizations that are concerned with overpopulation being eugenic, you find zero actual support for the claim?

Yes, if you do a google search for "overpopulation eugenics" or "evolution eugenics" you will find a lot of accusations that these sciences are associated with eugenics. The fact that people might misuse a science does not mean that the science is wrong. I know of no major group spreading the evidence for evolution or ecological overshoot that is also involved in any way in supporting eugenics. I gave you several links of organizations concerned about overpopulation. If you find support there for eugenics, please show me where. You have failed to name a single example of that claim.

If you deliberately attack people with false claims, that is known as libel. Please do not practice libel.

The question posed didn't mention genocide; I was responding to:

Can you give me the name of a leading organization that is unreasonably attacking the poorest of the planet's citizens for crimes actually committed by the wealthiest of us?

As a wise man once said:

If you deliberately attack people with false claims, that is known as libel. Please do not practice libel.

 

[bilby]

Per the link I keep giving, the worst problem is diversity loss, the second one is nitrogen contamination of rivers, and the third is global warming.

None of these is a population problem; Any could easily be a major problem for even a small population of foolish or uncaring people; While any could be solved without population reductions by a large population that includes people who apply themselves to finding non-genocide solutions to them.

Each of the three could potentially have its own thread, as the details are highly complex; But as a crude first pass, here are some solutions:

Diversity Loss
Establish large areas of National (or International) Parks and reserves. Pay local people NOT to engage in destructive agricultural and other economic practices. Employ local people at good wages as game wardens, so they have better options to make money than poaching.

Nitrogen Contamination of Rivers
Capture and process runoff before it enters rivers (this can be as simple as digging and maintaining a system of ditches). Use less fertiliser, or use different fertilisers that are less prone to running off the land. The nitrate that ends up in rivers was put on the land to do a specific job, and what ends up in rivers is a dead loss for farmers, so recovery of this valuable material that they paid good money for seems like an excellent idea; Cleaning up the rivers is a mere side effect of saving money in this scenario.

Global Warming
Nuclear Fission.

The problem is that the fossil fuels won't last forever. And we really don't have anything that can replace them to the magnitude that fossil fuels are currently used.

Yes, we do. Have had since the 1950s.

And what have we had that since the 50's that can replace fossil fuels on the scale we use them today?

If you don't already know my opinion, a search on this board for posts containing the word "nuclear" and my username will get you more of it that you probably want.

Most people here are aware that I lean ever so slightly towards the opinion that more use of nuclear power might not be a completely terrible idea.

Note that each of these proposed frameworks for solving each of these three problems makes no mention whatsoever of the completely irrelevant question of how many people there are.

There are plenty of environmental problems, and all of them are possible (and many quite easy) to address, mitigate or eliminate, without ANY reference to population levels.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are plenty of environmental problems, and all of them are possible (and many quite easy) to address, mitigate or eliminate, without ANY reference to population levels.

Yeah, it's my expectation that discussion of the population is generally best saved as an argument towards doing some specific things. Like, "encourage education! It improves technology and contributes to personal goal seeking abilities... And reduces unchecked population growth!" Rather than "we need to reduce population growth, let's get educating!"

It's a subtle difference but an important one.