Too many people?

[Merle]

In the latest issue of Free Inquiry, Milton H. Saier, Jr, wrote an article, Save the Earth; Don’t Give Birth. Saier warns that the planet is overpopulated with 8 billion people, potentially leading to famine, social unrest, and war. He suggests the current population rise and consumption habits could lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens in a century. That sounds serious.

Saier says the only hope for a stable order on earth is a “substantial reduction in size of the human population.” How far would we need to go? One commonly suggested figure is Paul Ehrlich’s 2 billion people (e.g., see Tom Flynn, Will World Population Drop Far Enough, Fast Enough, Free Inquiry, August/September 2021) which is 25% of today’s population. Is that our target? If we are to reduce to that population level, and the average person lives 72 years, then we would need to sustain a birth rate of only 28 million per year, which is 21% of the current rate. That sounds difficult.

The next question is how much time we have available to reach that goal. If resource depletion, pollution, and global warming could indeed lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens in a century, one would think we should try to reach sustainable limits well before that, so let’s use 80 years as our timeframe. If we want a sustainable population 80 years from now, and the average lifespan is 72 years, then we would have 8 years to ramp the birthrate down to sustainable levels.

Do we have far longer than 80 years to reach a sustainable population? Can the planet sustainably hold far more than 2 billion people? Or is the situation indeed as dire for our near descendants as those figures suggest? Should we really target reducing the birthrate 80% within the next 8 years?

We all want humanity, and our collective accomplishments, to endure far more than a few centuries. Saier says this will require a substantial population reduction, but he is not specific on how much. He says our only hope to achieve the required reduction is through overcoming natural human greed, dishonesty, and selfishness. “It is not clear that we humans are capable of such an achievement,” he adds, “but it is our only hope.” And that, my friends, is our predicament.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Population isn't the issue, political priorities are.

 

[Merle]

Population isn't the issue, political priorities are.

Is there a limit to population? Or is indefinite exponential increase acceptable on a finite planet?

You suggest having better political priorities. What political priorities would enable people in the next century to prosper without any restraint on the population size?

 

[bigfield]

In the latest issue of Free Inquiry, Milton H. Saier, Jr, wrote an article, Save the Earth; Don’t Give Birth.

It is paywalled. Please provide a copy of the text.

Saier says the only hope for a stable order on earth is a “substantial reduction in size of the human population.” How far would we need to go? One commonly suggested figure is Paul Ehrlich’s 2 billion people (e.g., see Tom Flynn, Will World Population Drop Far Enough, Fast Enough, Free Inquiry, August/September 2021) which is 25% of today’s population. Is that our target? If we are to reduce to that population level, and the average person lives 72 years, then we would need to sustain a birth rate of only 28 million per year, which is 21% of the current rate. That sounds difficult.

There is no reason to give Ehrlich's suggestion any weight. He predicted mass starvation would occur decades ago due to a collapse in the global food supply, and he could hardly have been more wrong: not only has the global population doubled again since the 70's, world hunger has been in decline for decades.

Do we have far longer than 80 years to reach a sustainable population? Can the planet sustainably hold far more than 2 billion people? Or is the situation indeed as dire for our near descendants as those figures suggest?

The planet's population will likely level out around 11 billion people, up from 8 billion today.

Most of the world's population today live very modestly and consume relatively few resources, and this will be true for pretty much all of the extra three billion that are yet to be added. Those people are not the problem. The problem is that a small, wealthy minority of the people on Earth are consuming extraordinary amount of energy to support their lifestyles. You can fantasise about subtracting billions of people from Asia and Africa but that won't stop people in developed nations from exhausting the planet's natural resources.

 

[lostone]

There's a lot of denial out there. Denial even that any problem exists. Denial based on the idea of 'we'll find a way, we always do/ science/technology will save us'. That will be hard to overcome. I think we will see no action until the threat is fully on us.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We keep creating catastrophe scenarious to get worked up about. Yet, they somehow either fail to materialise, or materialise in ways we didn't think they would. Or things turn out to be a catastrophe that take us by surprise. I thinking stuff like ledded petrol or DDT.

The thing is that a catastrophic global warming scenario isn't that bad. Humans are extremely adaptible. Yes, the water level is catastrophic. Food production will change. Our living arrangements and living space will be much limitted. But we'll be fine. We've been through a lot worse.

Niether China or India care about the environment. They're more focused on keeping their citizens alive now. So almost half of the world's populartion have more pressing needs than environmentalism and caring about the future.

Even in the west we have a split opinion on it. Conservatives don't care about the environment. Unless we have a massive majority opinion on the side of environmentalism, we're not going to fix this.

It's not a question of being stupid. It's simply a question of political realities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Population isn't the issue, political priorities are.

Is there a limit to population? Or is indefinite exponential increase acceptable on a finite planet?

You suggest having better political priorities. What political priorities would enable people in the next century to prosper without any restraint on the population size?

Wealth and money are an effective population control mechanism. It is generally self-governing without much in the way of need to interfere.

Political priority issues cover a ton of area, and unfortunately in the third world, the priorities are about inertia in power control than governance. The first world is trending back to that style as well.

In order to manage population, you need food and energy. We've come so far with managing food that we throw much of it away and don't starve. The people starving are often in those nations where supply chains suck and government is worse. Of course, climate change also impacts things. Stronger La Ninas and El Ninos impact weather patterns across the globe. Energy, we are moving kind of sideways there. We have what we need to make it happen, but lack the will to make it happen because it'd cost money.

We won't be needing to violate the laws of physics to sustain the population for a while. And generally, with population growth also comes more people to help the population (kind of the issue with Thanos' plan... ie... cutting a population in half might free up resources, but lacks the people to actually obtain said resources).

Know what we don't have? Enough beds in nursing homes and enough trained home care professionals. Let's worry about the problems we are suffering from.

 

[Elixir]

Do we have far longer than 80 years to reach a sustainable population?

I tend to side with Paul Ehrlich, ever since I was too young to even spell Paul Ehrlich.
That said, there’s no time limit. As long as people survive as a species, that’s as “sustainable” as it gets. No problem, as long as it’s okay that quality of life is secondary to the joys of procreation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's a lot of denial out there. Denial even that any problem exists. Denial based on the idea of 'we'll find a way, we always do/ science/technology will save us'. That will be hard to overcome. I think we will see no action until the threat is fully on us.

The issue is that the planet is pretty big. So there are a lot of resources. Rarer sources will be an issue, but that revolves around electric battery design, MRIs, and what not. The big stuff, water, air, and food... we've got it (or the tech to make it happen exists today). And the more people there are, the more there are to increase access to these things.

This isn't like electric car batteries or plastic, where industry says it isn't a problem or they'll figure it out. The bigger issues are adjusting in areas due to climate change and/or geography change (see Gobi / Sahara deserts). Some people want to ignore that, but mainly because they are shit in science and don't understand small changes in huge systems can result in a decent amount of change.

 

[steve_bank]

I tend to agree.

The problem is the economy based on investment in future growth needs a growing population. It is a tiger by the tail.

I expect nature will run its course and population will diminish.

 

[Elixir]

I expect nature will run its course and population will diminish

That is a certainty, if nature’s course includes stuff like nuclear war.

 

[Politesse]

Is there a limit to population? Or is indefinite exponential increase acceptable on a finite planet?

When you need to plan out your weekly budget, do you start by asking "Is it theoretically possible for a person to go bankrupt"? Or do you start by figuring out what your income and expenses are? Either it's the latter, or you make panicky decisions that result in worse management of your budget and have never really been able to get out of your debt cycle.

The furore about overpopulation is pseudoscientific hysteria, designed to appeal to a lazy upper class that likes to feel like they are "doing something" about world problems, without sacrificing any of their personal prosperity, while providing an official sounding explanation for the plight of those below them to justify systemic inequalities and mute critique.

Even if what they are "doing" is something so supremely useless as opining that the poor should have less children, and using that as an excuse for near complete inaction on everything from climate change to wage inequality.

 

[Merle]

There is no reason to give Ehrlich's suggestion any weight. He predicted mass starvation would occur decades ago due to a collapse in the global food supply, and he could hardly have been more wrong: not only has the global population doubled again since the 70's, world hunger has been in decline for decades.

Sure, Ehrlich did not foresee the results that the Green Revolution would have. But this revolution has relied heavily on artificial fertilizers and great quantities of oil and natural gas. The best sources of these nonrenewable resources will someday be gone. The issue is how we can maintain sufficient food production when these supplies are gone.

The two billion person limit is something I have seen calculated elsewhere. I was not simply going by Ehrlich's numbers.

The planet's population will likely level out around 11 billion people, up from 8 billion today.

To predict future population, we need to know what humans will choose to do 30 years from now, and we really don't know. Will there be more or less love making? Will they be using more or less contraceptives?

If the birth rate remains steady at its current rate of 134 million per year, and lifespans remain steady at 72 years, then population will level off at 9.6 billion. But nobody knows.

Most of the world's population today live very modestly and consume relatively few resources, and this will be true for pretty much all of the extra three billion that are yet to be added. Those people are not the problem. The problem is that a small, wealthy minority of the people on Earth are consuming extraordinary amount of energy to support their lifestyles. You can fantasise about subtracting billions of people from Asia and Africa but that won't stop people in developed nations from exhausting the planet's natural resources.

Most countries in Asia and Africa refer to themselves as developing countries, so they have no intention of staying in relative poverty. So we cannot just ignore billions of additional people as though they will all be confined to poverty. They want a better life, and that can lower the overall carrying capacity.

 

[rousseau]

I think the first question is too many people .. for who. Effects of resource consumption aren't going to be distributed evenly - we're already seeing mass starvation due to global warming, and this is just the beginning. You could argue that it's some variation of greed in the West to blame, but the core reason these people intensified their resource consumption in the first place was because of population density and growth of resource needs.

The other question isn't about the sheer number of people, it's about our cognitive ability to exploit the environment exponentially, and having no locus of control over our social groups. As long as there are people, no matter how many, there is going to be environmental degradation. The literal number of people on the planet isn't relevant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As long as there are people, no matter how many, there is going to be environmental degradation. The literal number of people on the planet isn't relevant.

This is obviously true for all species. There is no maximum number of individuals that the planet and its ecosystems can support. In effect the planet can support an infinite number of any and all species because that's how our planet works. This has always been the case and always will be, particularly for humans because our species is special. All species cause environmental degradation for some other species and contribute to the environmental improvement of other species. Even the great Pacific garbage patch is supporting species when we thought it was just another human induced environmental mess. The planet is self correcting when it comes to all this so humans don't have to worry about anything.

 

[Politesse]

Most countries in Asia and Africa refer to themselves as developing countries

What a load of horse shit! No, "Most countries in Asia and Africa" did not call themselves developing countries. That term was coined by a capitalist propagandist named Walt Whitman Rostow in 1960 very overtly in an attempt to reframe American neo-
colonial policies in undeclared nations, and though his theories of social development were not data-based and thus unsurprisingly proved inaccurate, groups like the IMF seized on his terminology gleefully and have refused to let go. One more unjustifiable reason to feel superior to people in other nations without critically examining one's own place in the world economic system.

 

[rousseau]

Most countries in Asia and Africa refer to themselves as developing countries

What a load of horse shit! No, "Most countries in Asia and Africa" did not call themselves developing countries. That term was coined by a capitalist propagandist named Walt Whitman Rostow in 1960 very overtly in an attempt to reframe American neo-
colonial policies in undeclared nations, and though his theories of social development were not data-based and thus unsurprisingly proved inaccurate, groups like the IMF seized on his terminology gleefully and have refused to let go. One more unjustifiable reason to feel superior to people in other nations without critically examining one's own place in the world economic system.

That's true, but the point that economically challenged countries (whatever the proper term is) want to become more prosperous is real, and they're happy to use non-renewables to get there. So the idea that 'adding 3 billion Africans will have no effect' isn't exactly accurate.

They're trying to modernize in the exact same way that proto-Europes did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most countries in Asia and Africa refer to themselves as developing countries

What a load of horse shit! No, "Most countries in Asia and Africa" did not call themselves developing countries. That term was coined by a capitalist propagandist named Walt Whitman Rostow in 1960 very overtly in an attempt to reframe American neo-
colonial policies in undeclared nations, and though his theories of social development were not data-based and thus unsurprisingly proved inaccurate, groups like the IMF seized on his terminology gleefully and have refused to let go. One more unjustifiable reason to feel superior to people in other nations without critically examining one's own place in the world economic system.

That's true, but the point that economically challenged countries (whatever the proper term is) want to become more prosperous is real, and they're happy to use non-renewables to get there. So the idea that 'adding 3 billion Africans will have no effect' isn't exactly accurate.

They're trying to modernize in the exact same way that proto-Europes did.

Except as nations develop, the baby making goes down. The real issue would be competition for gas and oil. Which is why we REALLY need to get moving on alternative fuels 25 years ago. China and India use paltry amounts of dino fuel compared to Europe and N.A. We had time to adapt but we had to drag a cult that worshiped decomposed and pressurized dinosaur shit along the way, which slowed down progress quite a bit.

 

[rousseau]

Most countries in Asia and Africa refer to themselves as developing countries

What a load of horse shit! No, "Most countries in Asia and Africa" did not call themselves developing countries. That term was coined by a capitalist propagandist named Walt Whitman Rostow in 1960 very overtly in an attempt to reframe American neo-
colonial policies in undeclared nations, and though his theories of social development were not data-based and thus unsurprisingly proved inaccurate, groups like the IMF seized on his terminology gleefully and have refused to let go. One more unjustifiable reason to feel superior to people in other nations without critically examining one's own place in the world economic system.

That's true, but the point that economically challenged countries (whatever the proper term is) want to become more prosperous is real, and they're happy to use non-renewables to get there. So the idea that 'adding 3 billion Africans will have no effect' isn't exactly accurate.

They're trying to modernize in the exact same way that proto-Europes did.

Except as nations develop, the baby making goes down.

Number of bodies isn't really relevant, though. The point is more about many African countries moving towards higher non-renewable usage at the same time the rest of the world is trying to transition away from that. Often, they're being encouraged to go straight to renewables. I'm no expert on this subject, but I hazard a guess that this isn't always a practical choice for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except as nations develop, the baby making goes down.

Number of bodies isn't really relevant, though.

In a conversation about population?

The point is more about many African countries moving towards higher non-renewable usage at the same time the rest of the world is trying to transition away from that. Often, they're being encouraged to go straight to renewables. I'm no expert on this subject, but I hazard a guess that this isn't always a practical choice for them.

Depends. I imagine that in some places, renewable solar could work better as that can help provide electricity without the need to expand infrastructure to carry power to some locations. I'm uncertain how much of these nations that'd benefit. Being an American, my knowledge of Africa stops generally at knowing where some of the countries are.