We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

We are overloading the planet. In response, 250 scientists have signed a paper saying, "researchers in many areas consider societal collapse a credible scenario this century." (https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-on-climate-and-the-risk-of-societal-collapse ) Wait, what? Societal collapse this century? Perhaps we should pay attention.

Some people say that these scientists have made a big deal out of nothing. We can just ignore them.

Others say these scientists have a good point, but science will save us. It always does.

Still others have seen our technical reaction as being dismally inadequate, that we are rapidly losing out. And it is unlikely science will ever catch up.

And others say it's just a matter of rich people consuming too much. If only we had enough laws preventing them from exploiting the planet, all will go well.

And then others will say that, although technology improvements and reducing affluence may help, in the end, all those efforts will fall short unless there are fewer people on Earth. 15,000 scientists have signed a paper saying, "humanity is not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperilled biosphere." One of the steps they say is necessary is to address our failure to "adequately limit population growth," (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229?login=false ) Many scientists have told us to take steps to reduce the future population on Earth.

Still others say we should do nothing. We are doomed. Many will starve. There is nothing that will change this. Get over it. Accept it.

I address these issues in my latest blog post, https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/.

What do you think?

 

[bilby]

We have succeeded in adequately limiting population growth.



Your fears are no more justified now than they were last time you posted about them, seven short months ago.

 

[Elixir]

I think the human population is headed for a bloody nosedive. Can’t say when but I feel like it’s inevitable considering our collective unwillingness to voluntarily do the things we would have to do to avoid it.
Also can’t predict what the other side of a population nosedive would look like. Probably depends on the proximate cause.

 

[bilby]

I think the human population is headed for a bloody nosedive. Can’t say when but I feel like it’s inevitable considering our collective unwillingness to voluntarily do the things we would have to do to avoid it.

We already did them.

74 years ago.

Hence the shape of the graph I posted above.

 

[Merle]

We have succeeded in adequately limiting population growth.

View attachment 45074

Your fears are no more justified now than they were last time you posted about them, seven short months ago.

2.3 children per woman is still population growth, at the rate of about 1 billion every 12 years.

As I said in the opening post, many scientists have made a case that we need a reduction in population. In my post, I link to many peer-reviewed articles that express this view.

 

[Merle]

We already did them.

74 years ago.

Hence the shape of the graph I posted above.

In the post I linked to in the OP, I show that the population change per year has been remarkably consistent for the last 50 years.

https://i0.wp.com/mindsetfree.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/UN-population-Screenshot-2023-11-18-081812.jpg?w=499&ssl=1

 

[bilby]

2.3 children per woman is still population growth

Are you imagining that the trend shown in that graph has stopped?

Why would you do that?

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

If your lobbying efforts are successful, you might manage to get something done this century. By which time your goal will already be old news.

The battle you are fighting was won seventy four years ago. You can stop now.

 

[Elixir]

I think the human population is headed for a bloody nosedive. Can’t say when but I feel like it’s inevitable considering our collective unwillingness to voluntarily do the things we would have to do to avoid it.

We already did them.

74 years ago.

Hence the shape of the graph I posted above.

The shape of the graph still shows population increase above replacement. And my “prediction” is not necessarily connected to a population level beyond what we already have. We seem quite capable of fucking the place up with current means. But nature is most likely to be the uncaring culprit IMO.

 

[Merle]

2.3 children per woman is still population growth

Are you imagining that the trend shown in that graph has stopped?

Why would you do that?

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

If your lobbying efforts are successful, you might manage to get something done this century. By which time your goal will already be old news.

The battle you are fighting was won seventy four years ago. You can stop now.

In my fourth paragraph I write:

William Rees argues that “the global economy will inevitably contract and humanity will suffer a major population correction in this century,” (Rees, 2023). “The climate crisis may wipe out six billion people” (Rees, 2019). Milton Saier wrote, “It seems that only with a very substantial reduction in the size of the human population can we hope for a stable order for Earth’s biosphere and its human inhabitants” (Saier, 2023). Martin Desvaux agrees: “It is the sheer weight of human numbers that is causing the overdraft on natural resources. If this continues uncorrected, a population crash will be inevitable” (Desvaux, 2007). As William Ripple put it, our actions could be critical to “the very future of humanity” (Ripple, 2022).

If you are interested in knowing why they say this, click the links.

 

[bilby]

In the first link, Rees says:

My starting premises are as follows: (1) Modern techo-industrial (MTI) society is in a state of advanced ecological overshoot

Assuming your preferred conclusion is an elegant and efficient way to reach that conclusion; But it's not logically sound, or even vaguely rational.

The second link is to a popular science article by the same author, and just reiterates what he said in his paper.

Saier's paper or article is paywalled.

Desvaux may be right that "If this continues uncorrected, a population crash will be inevitable", but my entire point is that it HAS BEEN corrected.

Ripple's paper is not about population at all; It's about environmental damage. Your assumption that the two are necessarily and inextricably linked is the point in question.

You believe something; You have found some other people who believe that thing. That's not a scientific argument, it's just a cult. There's no more evidence here than that presented by creationists elsewhere on these fora - indeed, the rhetorical style is worryingly similar.

 

[steve_bank]

Meh...I have been saying that for years on the forum and it is heard from media economic pundits.

Capitalism is based on growth. To sustain economic growth and stability population has to increase. That is why immigration has been important in this country.

Capitalism today is based on growth in consumption.

China and Japan have a problem. Low birth rate leading to insufficient numbers of young workers to support a growing retired population.

Capitalism, like our politics, is based on short term gains. What happens 10 or 20 years form now is irrelevant.

Global capitalism as it has evolved is not sustainable, it as an inherent flaw.

That fact is not knew. Ancient civilizations expanded over using resources, and failing. The diference is today the effects are global.

 

[Merle]

In the first link, Rees says:

My starting premises are as follows: (1) Modern techo-industrial (MTI) society is in a state of advanced ecological overshoot

Assuming your preferred conclusion is an elegant and efficient way to reach that conclusion; But it's not logically sound, or even vaguely rational.

The second link is to a popular science article by the same author, and just reiterates what he said in his paper.

Saier's paper or article is paywalled.

Desvaux may be right that "If this continues uncorrected, a population crash will be inevitable", but my entire point is that it HAS BEEN corrected.

Ripple's paper is not about population at all; It's about environmental damage. Your assumption that the two are necessarily and inextricably linked is the point in question.

You believe something; You have found some other people who believe that thing. That's not a scientific argument, it's just a cult. There's no more evidence here than that presented by creationists elsewhere on these fora - indeed, the rhetorical style is worryingly similar.

Rees' premise that we are in advanced overshoot is not a guess. It is based on solid evidence, He links to sources to verify his claim in the very paragraph you quoted above. You simply ignore his links backing up his claim, and make it look like he is just making it up.

Rees also cowrote a paper with Megan Seibert which details the problems with overshoot and the need for population reduction ( https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508 ). I link to that paper also later in my post.

And I provide multiple other references to the scientific literature throughout my post.

Look also at my list of references at the end of the post.

 

[bilby]

They believe that there's a problem of 'overpopulation'. I think they're badly mistaken, but let's assume that they're correct.

So... what now? What specific actions would you like to see taken?

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

If your lobbying efforts are successful, you might manage to get something done this century. By which time your goal will already be old news.

But the big question is, what are you lobbying FOR? What do you want people to do, and who should do it, and when?

Assuming for the sake of argument that every single person agrees that overpopulation is of critical importance, what laws would you want to see enacted (or repealed)? What is the plan?

 

[Elixir]

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

Population will experience a decline. The only question is how big a decline and how fast it will happen.

 

[Merle]

They believe that there's a problem of 'overpopulation'. I think they're badly mistaken, but let's assume that they're correct.

So... what now? What specific actions would you like to see taken?

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

If your lobbying efforts are successful, you might manage to get something done this century. By which time your goal will already be old news.

But the big question is, what are you lobbying FOR? What do you want people to do, and who should do it, and when?

Assuming for the sake of argument that every single person agrees that overpopulation is of critical importance, what laws would you want to see enacted (or repealed)? What is the plan?

Read my post. I am not going to cut and paste the whole post here. If you want to read it, click the link and read it.

 

[bilby]

They believe that there's a problem of 'overpopulation'. I think they're badly mistaken, but let's assume that they're correct.

So... what now? What specific actions would you like to see taken?

Population will begin to decline in the next couple of decades, if nothing is done about it.

If your lobbying efforts are successful, you might manage to get something done this century. By which time your goal will already be old news.

But the big question is, what are you lobbying FOR? What do you want people to do, and who should do it, and when?

Assuming for the sake of argument that every single person agrees that overpopulation is of critical importance, what laws would you want to see enacted (or repealed)? What is the plan?

Read my post. I am not going to cut and paste the whole post here. If you want to read it, click the link and read it.

I read it.

Nowhere do you suggest anything that's not already being done.

Most of your recommendations have basically nothing to do with population at all.

Those that do seem to boil down to "let's try to persuade people to change". So I am asking you: How?

What would you have happen, that is not already happening?

 

[Elixir]

What would you have happen, that is not already happening?

Trump, Putin, Kim, Duterte and a handful of others* all commit mass suicide and their former countries commit to representative rule of some sort, enabling sensible humanitarian approaches to global problems.
That, and the distribution of billions of free kazoos so people the world over can play Kumbaya, should do the trick.

* notably from Iran & Israel

 

[Merle]

Read my sections on reducing population and the path forward.

I don't believe I ever claimed that the solutions I promote would be different from what others have already proposed and are trying.

 

[Merle]

What would you have happen, that is not already happening?

Trump, Putin, Kim, Duterte and a handful of others all commit mass suicide and their former countries commit to representative rule of some sort, enabling sensible humanitarian approaches to global problems.
That, and the distribution of billions of free kazoos so people the world over can play Kumbaya, should do the trick.

Mass chorus of Kumbaya?

That sounds line the popular solution offered by Prof Jim Bendell, although he seems to be more Eastern in religion than Christian. Basically the point is, yes, we are doomed, but don't worry, be happy. https://jembendell.com/

 

[bilby]

Read my sections on reducing population and the path forward.

I don't believe I ever claimed that the solutions I promote would be different from what others have already proposed and are trying.

I read them.

They are completely devoid of a plan.

I am looking for detailed action items here.

What specific actions should be taken, when, and by whom?

Without that information, what you have isn't a call to action, it's just a whinge.