We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

 the detrimental human impact on the planet is equal to the number of noses times the negative impact on the planet per nose.

So a figure we have little control over, multiplied by a figure we have massive control over.

And you, bizarrely, conclude that we should therefore concentrate on the first of these.

Apparently due to a false belief that the second is somehow immutable.

You say it is bizarre that I would recommend reducing population, since we have little control over population. I have repeatedly told you that if we actively promoted the need to reduce population, made birth control more readily available, had programs for people in poor nation to survive their senior years without a large family, had tax policies that favored smaller families, etc. it could make a difference. It appears to me that we have a chance of women deciding to average one less child than what they have now. It would take a long time for that to make an significant effect, but if we continued for a century, we could indeed make a significant change. But you ignore all that, and make it look like I am bizarrely supported a view that I have no argument for.

You simply ignore all that, cutting out the link in my post that describes this in detail. Are you hoping that the Rubes won't notice what you just did?

If I had no reason to believe that reducing population would work, than promoting a reduction in population would be bizarre. But if you know your opponent has given you a significant argument for his case, then you should address his case, rather that hoping to impress the Rubes that your opponent is presenting bizarre opinions with no valid arguments.

But regarding your statement that I think the impact per person is immutable, why would you say that? I have repeatedly argued for nuclear power and other alternates to fossil fuels, with the understanding that this can have a significant impact. I have repeatedly argued that reducing affluence of the rich could help. You know I have argued for that. We have discussed these things numerous times. And yet somehow, bizarrely, you argue that I think these things are immutable. Unbelievable.

I think even you will agree that, even if I repeated a million times that I think we should be pursuing technological solutions, and that this would help, you would simply ignore what I say, and tell the Rubes that I am saying the opposite, yes?

 

[bigfield]

It's only fair that everyone has the opportunity to have their needs and wants fulfilled, to live well.

Sure, but whenever that happens, they won't be living the way that people in the West lived during the 2020's.

it looks like a hard road ahead for the world in the next few decades

Sure, but that's kinda obvious just looking at global warming, which is a disaster we could have avoided despite having way more than two billion people.

 

[bigfield]

It appears to me that we have a chance of women deciding to average one less child than what they have now. It would take a long time for that to make an significant effect, but if we continued for a century, we could indeed make a significant change.

Seems like we're on track to do that already:

Fertility Rate

How does the number of children vary across the world and over time? What is driving the rapid global change?

ourworldindata.org

 

[Elixir]

It appears to me that we have a chance of women deciding to average one less child than what they have now. It would take a long time for that to make a significant effect, but if we continued for a century, we could indeed make a significant change.

A century may be a long time for an individual but it isn’t a long time for a society. One reason we have been so slow off the mark is our addiction to short term results.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.

You mean to say that the scenario you posited ("when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy") is not going to happen?

It's only fair that everyone has the opportunity to have their needs and wants fulfilled, to live well. Whether that comes to pass is anyone's guess. All I can say is that, to me, it looks like a hard road ahead for the world in the next few decades. I hope I am wrong.

It is always a hard road. It wasn't easy getting up to this point.

The complaints about consumerism are a bit funny to me. With AI coming up not too far down the road, the issue isn't whether people will be able to buy things, it'll be how we make a living if computers are doing 75+% of the work. We have a large computer transition coming up, and we aren't remotely thinking about it. Who cares if it is 4 or 8 billion people on Earth, when we have jobs for 100 million? I mean, it is possible, but as a species, our culture as a whole isn't ready for it.

We need to aim towards sustainability, but I think we have other issues that are looming that need a ton more attention.

 

[bilby]

I have repeatedly told you that if we actively promoted the need to reduce population, made birth control more readily available, had programs for people in poor nation to survive their senior years without a large family, had tax policies that favored smaller families, etc. it could make a difference.

Yes, you have. But as this vacuous tautology achieves nothing that's not already being achieved, it remains difficult to determine why you wasted the effort to tell me even once.

 

[bilby]

If I had no reason to believe that reducing population would work, than promoting a reduction in population would be bizarre.

Reducing birth rates already has worked; Almost nobody noticed while it happened, and no promotion of the idea was necessary.

We observe that giving girls a reasonable primary education, and access to reproductive choice (both of which are beneficial and would be persued in their own right regardless of any impact on birth rates), leads inevitably to birth rates below replacement level.

Vehemently demanding that we do something that we are already doing is pointless grandstanding.

 

[Merle]

If I had no reason to believe that reducing population would work, than promoting a reduction in population would be bizarre.

Reducing birth rates already has worked; Almost nobody noticed while it happened, and no promotion of the idea was necessary.

We observe that giving girls a reasonable primary education, and access to reproductive choice (both of which are beneficial and would be persued in their own right regardless of any impact on birth rates), leads inevitably to birth rates below replacement level.

Vehemently demanding that we do something that we are already doing is pointless grandstanding.

We have brought the birthrate down around 2.3. As you probably know, I have been suggesting we need to get it down to 1.3.

1.3 <> 2.3.

 

[Merle]

It appears to me that we have a chance of women deciding to average one less child than what they have now. It would take a long time for that to make an significant effect, but if we continued for a century, we could indeed make a significant change.

Seems like we're on track to do that already:

View attachment 45298

Fertility Rate

How does the number of children vary across the world and over time? What is driving the rapid global change?

ourworldindata.org

Sure, but simultaneously the number of women of childbearing age has been increasing due to population momentum. And the birthrate is proportional to the number of women of childbearing age times the number of children born per woman. As I have mentioned several times on this thread, the birthrate has been holding constant at around 83 million per year for the last 40 years. I think we need to reduce that in half.

 

[bigfield]

I have been suggesting we need to get it down to 1.3.

That would probably cause economic collapse.

 

[Merle]

I have been suggesting we need to get it down to 1.3.

That would probably cause economic collapse.

How would an average of 1.3 children per woman lead to economic collapse? Japan and Italy are already at 1.3 and did not collapse.

 

[Merle]

It appears to me that we have a chance of women deciding to average one less child than what they have now. It would take a long time for that to make a significant effect, but if we continued for a century, we could indeed make a significant change.

A century may be a long time for an individual but it isn’t a long time for a society. One reason we have been so slow off the mark is our addiction to short term results.

I understand. But most likely there are people alive today that will know people that will be alive 100 years from now, so those people of next century really are not that far from us.

I am 67, and will probably see no significant benefit from a fertility rate of 1.3. But those who live 60 years or 100 years from now will see a big benefit..

 

[DBT]

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.

You mean to say that the scenario you posited ("when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy") is not going to happen?

It's only fair that everyone has the opportunity to have their needs and wants fulfilled, to live well. Whether that comes to pass is anyone's guess. All I can say is that, to me, it looks like a hard road ahead for the world in the next few decades. I hope I am wrong.

It is always a hard road. It wasn't easy getting up to this point.

The complaints about consumerism are a bit funny to me. With AI coming up not too far down the road, the issue isn't whether people will be able to buy things, it'll be how we make a living if computers are doing 75+% of the work. We have a large computer transition coming up, and we aren't remotely thinking about it. Who cares if it is 4 or 8 billion people on Earth, when we have jobs for 100 million? I mean, it is possible, but as a species, our culture as a whole isn't ready for it.

We need to aim towards sustainability, but I think we have other issues that are looming that need a ton more attention.

If AI does the work, makes stuff, provides services, who has the money to pay for these goods and services?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Population reached that milestone in the late 1920s. Using only the technologies and geopolitical structures available at that time, how could population have possibly have been "stabilized"?

When a patient has inoperable cancer, do we pretend that there is no cancer?

No. Yet, repeatedly over and over like a broken off-key record we have posts that implicitly complain that there's no way to avoid having the present-day excessive overpopulation of 8 billion and therefore we must pretend there is no overpopulation.

Of course this is just one of MANY fallacies from the No Overpopulation Cult but I will content myself with posting the rebuttals only over and over and over, compared with the No Overpopulation Cult who repeat their misconceptions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

We are not certain of the status of the cancer.

We do know you don't treat it by starving the patient.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

It's most likely too late. We missed that boat, so in the next few decades we are likely to be in for a rough ride.

Is this like Jeopardy where I have to guess the question to which your statement is an answer?

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.
Too little, too late, with many of those in power denying that there is a problem, still trying to maintain population growth through incentives and immigration.

Question #2 is largely irrelevant in face of the issues we now face, especially in the next few decades, where we are not likely to curb our own consumption habits radically even while more people in the developing world are raising their own living standards, wanting the things we enjoy.

What you fail to see is that attempting to hinder growth will have an even bigger hindrance on the only hope of avoiding a crash--technology. You're in an unpleasantly fast turn--do you hit the brakes? Only if you want to die!

 

[DBT]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

It's most likely too late. We missed that boat, so in the next few decades we are likely to be in for a rough ride.

Is this like Jeopardy where I have to guess the question to which your statement is an answer?

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.
Too little, too late, with many of those in power denying that there is a problem, still trying to maintain population growth through incentives and immigration.

Question #2 is largely irrelevant in face of the issues we now face, especially in the next few decades, where we are not likely to curb our own consumption habits radically even while more people in the developing world are raising their own living standards, wanting the things we enjoy.

What you fail to see is that attempting to hinder growth will have an even bigger hindrance on the only hope of avoiding a crash--technology. You're in an unpleasantly fast turn--do you hit the brakes? Only if you want to die!

I made no mention of "hitting the breaks," but just what Adam Smith, et al, envisioned - transitioning into a steady state economy and population equilibrium, where birth rate equals death rate and we maintain a stable population and economy. We should have worked to achieve this decades ago.

 

[bigfield]

I have been suggesting we need to get it down to 1.3.

That would probably cause economic collapse.

How would an average of 1.3 children per woman lead to economic collapse? Japan and Italy are already at 1.3 and did not collapse.

They are facing economic collapse as the labour force shrinks quickly while maintaining a large number of pensioners.

 

[steve_bank]

Russia's, China's, and Japan;s population problem has been covered in the media for some time.

Both Russia and China are trying to coax people to have more kids.

Greece has been in financial trouble as long as I can remmeber. Multiple bailouts.

Public pensions in Greece - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Public pensions in Greece are designed to provide incomes to Greek pensioners upon reaching retirement. For decades pensions in Greece were known to be among the most generous in the European Union, allowing many pensioners to retire earlier than pensioners in other European countries.[1] This placed a heavy burden on Greece's public finances which (coupled with an aging workforce) made the Greek state increasingly vulnerable to external economic shocks, culminating in a recession due to the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent European debt crisis. This series of crises has forced the Greek government to implement economic reforms aimed at restructuring the pension system and eliminating inefficiencies within it.[2] Measures in the Greek austerity packages imposed upon Greek citizens by the European Central Bank have achieved some success at reforming the pension system despite having stark ramifications for standards of living in Greece, which have seen a sharp decline since the beginning of the crisis.[3]

 

[bilby]

transitioning into a steady state economy and population equilibrium, where birth rate equals death rate and we maintain a stable population and economy. We should have worked to achieve this decades ago.

We worked very effectively to achieve this centuries ago.

But there was a problem - despite the best efforts of aristocrats and clergymen, prople would keep getting dangerous ideas.

Like "Why should I do the same job as my father and grandfather before me, and just accept that I will never do any better than they did?"; or "What if we made a chimney out of bricks, so we could have the fire against the wall, rather than in the centre of the house?"; or "I wonder whether there's a way to improve the mechanism of our family's mill"; or "I wonder if there's any gold in this stream"; or "Perhaps we could make glass into flat sheets and use that to stop the draughts coming in through the windows, while still letting in daylight"; or "What if dying for my King isn't a noble and honorable thing, but just a way for him to stay rich while my brothers are maimed or killed?"

Life in Medieval Europe was much as you describe, for several centuries.

But there's a reason why "medieval" isn't used as a modern epithet for "kind", or "joyous", or "innovative".

A steady-state economy requires brutality to hold back any effort to change anything. Because people have an annoying tendency to want to improve their lives, even when their lords and masters say "no", and their priests and bishops tell them it's contrary to God's will.

 

[Merle]

I have been suggesting we need to get it down to 1.3.

That would probably cause economic collapse.

How would an average of 1.3 children per woman lead to economic collapse? Japan and Italy are already at 1.3 and did not collapse.

They are facing economic collapse as the labour force shrinks quickly while maintaining a large number of pensioners.

You seem to be confusing economic hardship and collapse. Having more retired people per working age person is a hardship. It is not the same thing as collapse.

You keep forgetting that, with fewer children, that actually relieves a lot of the financial burden on the working class. And as Christopher Tucker has pointed out, the number of supported people per working class person stays nearly the same. (Tucker, 2022).

But let's say the hardship of having more retired people per working age person is too big to bear. Then what do you suggest? Do we just put our heads in the sand?

Yes, I know that everybody is praying that our Lord and Savior, Nuclear Power, will be there when we need him. But what if there is no Nuclear Power God? What if your Nuclear Power God is mortal, and subject to physical limitations? (Schneider, 2023, Davis, 2012, Clifford, 2023, Berman, 2023 ). Will you just pray harder?

"Fundamentally, we need to talk about a future of less instead of a future of more." ( Nikiforuk, 2023). If we need to talk about a future with less, how do we do that? Can we really expect all the rich to scale back? In what way would that be better for the economy than reducing births?