We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[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.

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/

Yuppers. We all gonna die, so live it up?
Does it really matter whether we die in sequence or all at once?
For some reason, it does, but I can’t say why except by invoking some evolutionary imperative.

 

[bilby]

I propose to live for ever, or die in the attempt.

 

[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.

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.

I hope you didn't mind my posting my whinge.

If you were looking for a detailed plan, could you start out with your detailed plan? Do you think it would prevent collapse?

 

[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/

Yuppers. We all gonna die, so live it up?
Does it really matter whether we die in sequence or all at once?
For some reason, it does, but I can’t say why except by invoking some evolutionary imperative.

 

[Elixir]

I propose to live for ever, or die in the attempt.

I think that’s a good approach. I have noticed that simply drawing breath and moving gradually becomes more difficult and painful as I age, so I expect it will eventually become impossible and intolerable. But not today!

 

[bilby]

If you were looking for a detailed plan, could you start out with your detailed plan? Do you think it would prevent collapse?

I would recommend that we develop a contraceptive that is in the control of women, is highly effective, and doesn't require any action by either partner in 'the heat of the moment', which is the major failing of most contraceptive techniques.

It should be developed and marketed by a pharmaceutical manhfacturer with global market access, and should be made available progressively through the 1960s and 1970s.

In addition, primary education should be made available to all children worldwide, particularly girls; This should be enacted by government education departments, progressively through the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty first centuries.

These are sufficient to completely resolve the problem of population growth, which should slowly decline until around 2040, after which population will gradually decline from its mid-twenty-first century peak.

Far more importantly, we need to stop burning fossil fuels (a problem which has three-eighths of bugger all to do with population). This can be done by replacing coal and gas power plants with nuclear plants; The French demonstrated that it worked in the 1980s, and there's no technological or rational obstacle to their succcess being repeated and expanded as soon as possible. The best time to do this is twenty years ago; The second best time is now.

 

[Merle]

Far more importantly, we need to stop burning fossil fuels (a problem which has three-eighths of bugger all to do with population). This can be done by replacing coal and gas power plants with nuclear plants; The French demonstrated that it worked in the 1980s, and there's no technological or rational obstacle to their succcess being repeated and expanded as soon as possible. The best time to do this is twenty years ago; The second best time is now.

Uh, what percent of fossil fuels would be saved with this method?

You are talking about using nuclear to make electricity, which is only about 1/5 of our total energy. And even in that niche which is especially suited for fossil fuels, we find the need for government subsidies to keep nuclear running. (Clifford, 2022). Much of our fossil fuels are used directly in high temperature industrial applications, where the direct use of fossil fuels is far more efficient than using electric. If nuclear can't fulfill its own niche without subsidies, how would it survive if we relied on it for everything?

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants. If we use electric instead of gas for the ovens to make the components, nuclear plants will surely be much more expensive.

And our critical fertilizer supplies come direct from natural gas. To make this from nuclear will be far more expensive.

Fossil fuels will probably be gone in 200 years. And it is doubtful we could ever afford to use nuclear for most industrial ovens or for making things like fertilizer, medicines, and pesticides that we now make from fossil fuels. When we get to that point, the case can be made that we cannot expect to have more than 2 billion people living on Earth with any acceptable degree of comfort. And if we needed to get there in 200 years, then the time to reduce births would be now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I do think collapse is likely the entire argument of the greens falls apart on a basic problem:

The carrying capacity of Earth is below a million people and with an early stone age existence. Anything higher than this consumes resources which will in time run out. This is always glossed over by not projecting past the point where it falls apart.

Note, however, that research spending is a function of how much society produces beyond what is needed to sustain us. The low-tech approach basically brings research to a halt and ensures we hit a resource wall.

The only path that doesn't lead to catastrophe is technological--develop ways to maintain our standard of living without consuming irreplaceable resources. Is there a path? There's no way to be certain other than trying. If the path exists can we find and follow it before things collapse? Again, no way of being certain.

 

[Merle]

The only path that doesn't lead to catastrophe is technological--develop ways to maintain our standard of living without consuming irreplaceable resources. Is there a path? There's no way to be certain other than trying. If the path exists can we find and follow it before things collapse? Again, no way of being certain.

Well, yes, I put this first in my post as everybody's favorite option: We will just think our way out of our dilemma.

But I find that the technology option isn't doing all that well. The Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans (Gibbs, 2019) shows that, although the Green New Deal has great intentions, it doesn't seem to be up to actually solving the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Far more importantly, we need to stop burning fossil fuels (a problem which has three-eighths of bugger all to do with population). This can be done by replacing coal and gas power plants with nuclear plants; The French demonstrated that it worked in the 1980s, and there's no technological or rational obstacle to their succcess being repeated and expanded as soon as possible. The best time to do this is twenty years ago; The second best time is now.

Uh, what percent of fossil fuels would be saved with this method?

Could be 100%.

You are talking about using nuclear to make electricity, which is only about 1/5 of our total energy. And even in that niche which is especially suited for fossil fuels, we find the need for government subsidies to keep nuclear running. (Clifford, 2022). Much of our fossil fuels are used directly in high temperature industrial applications, where the direct use of fossil fuels is far more efficient than using electric. If nuclear can't fulfill its own niche without subsidies, how would it survive if we relied on it for everything?

The basic problem with nuclear is we obsess with safety. The nuclear industry is saddled with a regulatory culture of as safe as feasible--which translates into no matter what you do it can never be competitive because doing so would make it feasible to add more safety. The result is counterproductive and increases the risk. (Another example of this is the rule that babies may be held during a flight and not given a seat. A baby in a proper seat is safer than a baby in arms, but the expense of that seat means more people will choose to drive rather than fly and thus more people will die.)

Instead, we should back up and totally rethink our approach to safety. Take "as safe as possible" out and shoot it. Instead, any essential industry (and power certainly is essential) should be permitted to operate at a safety level that is superior to all actual alternatives. The government doesn't get to mandate safety rules, but rather evaluates the risk model presented--if it's better than the alternatives it's approved.

In the case of nuclear that means nuclear plants would have to be safer (measuring the whole cycle) than natural gas plants. They are currently approximately 10x as safe. (Beware of bad data from Fukushima--nuclear is blamed for bad decisions by politicians, reducing the margin to only about 5x as safe.)

One estimate says nuclear plants require one unit of fossil fuel energy for every five units produced throughout the life of the plant. So, when we use nuclear, all we are doing is making our fossil fuels go further. Don't confuse that with being able to make nuclear completely replace fossil fuels.

I find the number suspicious but perhaps if you figure the entire rest of the cycle is done with fossil fuel it might possibly be true. Many of those steps could be done with nuclear-produced electricity, though.

What you are also missing is that you can use that electricity to split water, then react the hydrogen with CO2 to produce methane. AKA natural gas. In other words, we can make fossil fuel.

The materials in a nuclear plant are made with fossil fuels. We don't even know if we can make them with electricity made from nuclear plants. If we use electric instead of gas for the ovens to make the components, nuclear plants will surely be much more expensive.

Only because the regulatory system is a mess. In a sane environment nuclear would be the cheapest.

And our critical fertilizer supplies come direct from natural gas. To make this from nuclear will be far more expensive.

Fossil fuels will probably be gone in 200 years. And it is doubtful we could ever afford to use nuclear for most industrial ovens or for making things like fertilizer, medicines, and pesticides that we now make from fossil fuels. When we get to that point, the case can be made that we cannot expect to have more than 2 billion people living on Earth with any acceptable degree of comfort. And if we needed to get there in 200 years, then the time to reduce births would be now.

Why do you say we couldn't afford to? The H2O + CO2 + electricity => CH4 + O2 reaction runs reasonably efficiently. (Expensive, but most of the energy ends up in the CH4.)

And if we can handle 2 billion we can handle 10 billion. There's nothing the 8 billion use that the 2 billion wouldn't.

 

[southernhybrid]

Oddly enough, I read an opinion piece earlier today, which I will gift, that said population is soon to peak and that will be a problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.KU0.KQUa.V2XROkZZ77gC&smid=url-share

Most people now live in countries where two or fewer children are born for every two adults. If all people in the United States today lived through their reproductive years and had babies at an average pace, then it would add up to about 1.66 births per woman. In Europe, that number is 1.5; in East Asia, 1.2; in Latin America, 1.9. Any worldwide average of fewer than two children per two adults means our population shrinks and in the long run each new generation is smaller than the one before. If the world’s fertility rate were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.

What would happen as a consequence? Over the past 200 years, humanity’s population growth has gone hand in hand with profound advances in living standards and health: longer lives, healthier children, better education, shorter workweeks and many more improvements. Our period of progress began recently, bringing the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of electric lightbulbs, video calls with Grandma and the possibility of eradicating Guinea worm disease. In this short period, humanity has been large and growing. Economists who study growth and progress don’t think this is a coincidence. Innovations and discoveries are made by people. In a world with fewer people in it, the loss of so much human potential may threaten humanity’s continued path toward better lives.

Whenever low birthrates get public attention, chances are somebody is concerned about what it means for international competition, immigration or a government’s fiscal challenges over the coming decades as the population ages. But that’s thinking too small. A depopulating world is a big change that we all face together. It’s bigger than geopolitical advantage or government budgets. It’s much bigger than nationalistic worries over which country or culture might manage to eke out a population decline that’s a little bit slower than its neighbors’.

So, this writer's opinion is that a falling population is a bad thing. I'm not interested in discussing this, but when I saw the thread title, I thought I'd add the article that I read a few hours ago. There's a lot more in the article, including some graphs that demonstrate the expected population decrease.

 

[bilby]

Oddly enough, I read an opinion piece earlier today, which I will gift, that said population is soon to peak and that will be a problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.KU0.KQUa.V2XROkZZ77gC&smid=url-share

Most people now live in countries where two or fewer children are born for every two adults. If all people in the United States today lived through their reproductive years and had babies at an average pace, then it would add up to about 1.66 births per woman. In Europe, that number is 1.5; in East Asia, 1.2; in Latin America, 1.9. Any worldwide average of fewer than two children per two adults means our population shrinks and in the long run each new generation is smaller than the one before. If the world’s fertility rate were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.

What would happen as a consequence? Over the past 200 years, humanity’s population growth has gone hand in hand with profound advances in living standards and health: longer lives, healthier children, better education, shorter workweeks and many more improvements. Our period of progress began recently, bringing the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of electric lightbulbs, video calls with Grandma and the possibility of eradicating Guinea worm disease. In this short period, humanity has been large and growing. Economists who study growth and progress don’t think this is a coincidence. Innovations and discoveries are made by people. In a world with fewer people in it, the loss of so much human potential may threaten humanity’s continued path toward better lives.

Whenever low birthrates get public attention, chances are somebody is concerned about what it means for international competition, immigration or a government’s fiscal challenges over the coming decades as the population ages. But that’s thinking too small. A depopulating world is a big change that we all face together. It’s bigger than geopolitical advantage or government budgets. It’s much bigger than nationalistic worries over which country or culture might manage to eke out a population decline that’s a little bit slower than its neighbors’.

So, this writer's opinion is that a falling population is a bad thing. I'm not interested in discussing this, but when I saw the thread title, I thought I'd add the article that I read a few hours ago. There's a lot more in the article, including some graphs that demonstrate the expected population decrease.

Bad news sells. Good news doesn't.

Literally everything and its opposite are a disaster, if we are dumb enough to believe the news.

 

[Merle]

Oddly enough, I read an opinion piece earlier today, which I will gift, that said population is soon to peak and that will be a problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.KU0.KQUa.V2XROkZZ77gC&smid=url-share

So, this writer's opinion is that a falling population is a bad thing. I'm not interested in discussing this, but when I saw the thread title, I thought I'd add the article that I read a few hours ago. There's a lot more in the article, including some graphs that demonstrate the expected population decrease.

Interesting article. I don't agree with the conclusion.

We have had close to 140 million births per year for the last 35 years, as I show in the chart above. One simple estimate of future population is to say this trend will continue, and that people will continue to live to an average of 71. That would mean the population will asymptotically approach 140 * 71 = 9.9 billion if current trends continue. That is very close to what the far more sophisticated UN estimate says.

 

[Merle]

Here is the chart I was referring to. The earlier post just had a link not the actual chart. Source: United Nations, 2022, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). World Population Prospects 2022, Online Edition.

 

[bilby]

Oddly enough, I read an opinion piece earlier today, which I will gift, that said population is soon to peak and that will be a problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.KU0.KQUa.V2XROkZZ77gC&smid=url-share

So, this writer's opinion is that a falling population is a bad thing. I'm not interested in discussing this, but when I saw the thread title, I thought I'd add the article that I read a few hours ago. There's a lot more in the article, including some graphs that demonstrate the expected population decrease.

Interesting article. I don't agree with the conclusion.

We have had close to 140 million births per year for the last 35 years, as I show in the chart above. One simple estimate of future population is to say this trend will continue, and that people will continue to live to an average of 71. That would mean the population will asymptotically approach 140 * 71 = 9.9 billion if current trends continue. That is very close to what the far more sophisticated UN estimate says.

It's also well within the carrying capacity of the planet, with current technology.

Of course, it's not with current worst-practices designed to enrich a handful of people by allowing them to externalise their waste streams. But that's not a population problem, just a political one.

 

[steve_bank]

The answer to maintain standard of living and population growth is technology?

Science and technology has taken us out of the natural checks and balances in the ecosystem, at least for a while.

We have no natural predators. Vaccinations and antibiotics extend natural life. People live to the point when they need daily care.

We are already having a social-civil-political meltdown in the industrialized west. Too many diverent people. Our border is being over run by people form the south of the border.

I think Elixer is right, we are headed for a bloody population decline.

It has happened periodically in history. Mayan and Incan civilizations peaked and then collapsed.


Today in the USA we have too many peoole crowded into too small areas.

 

[Elixir]

It's also well within the carrying capacity of the planet, with current technology.

I don’t think that statement can be made with anything like full confidence. The “carrying capacity” of the earth depends largely on just what kind of shithole people are willing to live in, in order to procreate.

I think with current technology we’d have no problem keeping 12-15 billion or more alive and reproducing, albeit probably miserably. With nothing to compare it to, just being alive and sexually functional would probably be enough to keep most of those billions happy just to be alive.
But I’m glad I won’t be.

 

[steve_bank]

Quality of life.

Technology reduces the need and skill levels of people for work. Population increases with nothing meaningful for people to other than sit around playing music, playing video games, and getting high.

Metal illness and unhappiness is growing from the reporting.

 

[bilby]

It's also well within the carrying capacity of the planet, with current technology.

I don’t think that statement can be made with anything like full confidence. The “carrying capacity” of the earth depends largely on just what kind of shithole people are willing to live in, in order to procreate.

I think with current technology we’d have no problem keeping 12-15 billion or more alive and reproducing, albeit probably miserably. With nothing to compare it to, just being alive and sexually functional would probably be enough to keep most of those billions happy just to be alive.
But I’m glad I won’t be.

With current technology, things are dramatically better for the vast majority of people today than at any time in history.

Yet there were far fewer people in total in the past.

The hypothesis that more people leads to lower quality of life is exactly the reverse of what we observe; If you want to defend that hypothesis (or is it an article of faith?), you'll need some extraordinarily compelling evidence.

Famine has largely disappeared from the world for the last forty years, having been a fixture of human life since the mesolithic.

The history of the world has been one of an ever decreasing proportion of people living in "shithole conditions", as population has risen.

Technology has observably made life better, faster than population increase could make life worse; Why do you expect that fact to suddenly change?

There were plenty of people in the 1960's and '70s who predicted that everything would go to shit by the 90's or certainly by the end of the twentieth century. Yet here we are, almost a quarter of the way through the tweny-first, and things have massively improved - we have eliminated famine, significantly reduced war, and made considerable advances in coping with pestilence (to the point where lots of idiots are so unaware of its existence that they actually fight against public health measures).

We live longer and better lives than people did fifty years ago. There were 3.6 Billion people in 1970; Today there are more than twice as many people, but things are far better.

And the population will not double again (unless something dramatic changes).

 

[Tigers!]

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?

(Damn I liked your post by mistake)
Whenever some one tells me that the earth has too many people I ask ask them 1 question - when are you leaving?

I notice that its always someone else there are too many of. Never people like them. Funny that.