We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[DBT]

It's not a big if.

Basically;
Hunter gatherers are generally nomadic because they exhaust the resources of their territory, animals to hunt and plants to gather become harder to find, they move on and return when the area is replenished.

The land can only support so many hunter gatherers. There is a limit.

Farming secures the food supply, enables permanent settlements, towns and cities. Even that has its limits, which is why our population never exceeded one billion for our entire existence.

It was only the advent of the industrial revolution, large scale agriculture, machinery, medicine, etc, that enabled our spike in numbers and the related issues that we have experienced.

And how do you get from all that to "one billion represents long term carrying capacity for humans"??

Under one billion was the reality, up until the industrial revolution. It wasn't for want of trying, the limit was imposed by our environment, climate, resources, disease, catastrophe, etc. For example, the population of Europe crashed in the 1500's due to climate conditions (mini ice age) series of plague, etc.

As for current times, given our technology, mechanization, medicine, etc, many the limitations of the past are not an issue, and we can manage a higher population, just not 8 billion or more in the long term.

The problem I have with your "if" is that it presumes a figure - one billion - that appears from nowhere. Why should the long term carrying capacity be a billion? Why not ten billion? or a hundred million?

I am seeing nothing at all that justifies your choice of a billion as the threshold. So why should we care about what happens if it is, given that it probably isn't?

One billion doesn't appear from nowhere. According to the research, our population never got to one billion until recent times. It was always under that figure for our entire existence up until industrial times.

That is the point. That our environment has set the limits to our grown for hundreds of thousands of years, first as hunter gatherers, then eight thousand years or so as farmers and citizens.

Our technology doesn't insulate us from our environment and its ecosystems. We still have environmental limits to growth and consumption, just that technology enables a higher population than at any time in the past.

Given that we are in overshoot now, what long term sustainability and population number may look like has yet to be determined. I guess we'll find out in the next few decades.

 

[Merle]

And now, I will respond to myself.

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.

I would say about 2/3 of the people here think overshoot is a big deal, and the rest think scientists that warn of overshoot have made a big deal over nothing.

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

This is probably the majority view here. We want science to save us. We need science to save us. Therefore it will. I see that the fanaticism to pass off all issues with the assertion that science will surely solve the problem is little different from a blind religious faith.

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.

I see a significant minority that takes this view.

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.

This idea comes up from time to time, with the novel solution that we can solve it by "eliminating" the rich people. That seems a little extreme to me.

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.

That's where I am at. And there are a few people posting here who agree.

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.

This one actually has a significant presence here. It may be where we are at. I sure hope not.

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

What do you think?

Keep your input coming.

 

[Swammerdami]

Does "under one billion represents long term carrying capacity" (sic)?
....
It's a suspiciously round number for something that has been calculated from real data, rather than being pulled from somebody's rectum.

Just the opposite. There are many unknowns and the science is very difficult. You should be suspicious if someone presents this "carrying capacity" with TWO significant digits.

You're a smart guy, bilby, and probably know this yourself. That you jerk out the response you did makes us wonder if you're taking the conversation seriously.

 

[Swammerdami]

I believe all of the renewable ones can be solved if we are sufficiently determined. (But note that species loss is not renewable.) It will be painful but it won't do us in.

Species loss (or even massive reduction due to habitat loss) is a big drawback to overpopulation even if it doesn't "do us in."

Do we imagine our grandchildren saying "So glad there's 10 billion of us! Traffic jams; what fun! Too bad we don't see birds or flowers anymore, but we still have Google Images!" Is this a world that Overpopulation Deniers are happy to envision?

I don't really count fossil fuels because they can be replaced. Minerals, though, are the sticking point. I disagree on deteriorate with recycling--that's the realm of organics. Minerals can be purified. But in time we aren't going to be able to find enough. Eventually the effort becomes too great and 20% of current is utopia compared to what I expect.

Petroleum has other important uses than fuel. Recall that hunting whales -- soon to be extinct? -- for their oil was big business in the 1800's.

BUT I was intrigued to note in the 6-out-of-9 paper Merle linked to, that NONE of their six main concerns involved shortages. Their worry about phosphates, for example, was NOT the increasing difficulty of finding affordable supplies; instead it was pollution of the ocean, "erodible soils," and perhaps freshwater. (In the same "Biogeochemical flows: P and N cycles" category they also consider nitrogen usage to exceed a risk threshold.)

 

[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.

And you don't like my whinge?

I wrote more to discuss the problem rather than a detailed description of the solution. But I did write some things about the solution. I summarize my solution as:

So, what do we do? Most of the above. First, we need to accept that whatever comes, it is what it is, and make the most of it. And we must always make room for hope, to always hold out that we will make the most of what comes. But that hope should not include denial and should not come at the expense of a realistic preparation for what may come. And yes, societies need to include nuclear reactors, windmills, solar panels, batteries, and hopefully many other innovative technologies that are around the corner. And we could tell people that, for each decision not to have another child, that is one less person that needs to be supported on this overfilled lifeboat, Earth. We could actively ask for people to reduce birthrates, especially in rich countries. And of course, where we can individually or collectively cut back our impact to preserve the planet, let’s do so.

Nobody knows what is going to happen. There needs to be a concentrated effort to understand it better. We need accurate models and predictions of the future based on the best available science. And we need to inform people of what scientists find. We need to be working to develop technical solutions. There are plenty of challenging areas in which people can apply their thoughts to make things better. -- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/

Regarding the target birth rate, I have suggested we should aim for a total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.3 births per woman. According to the graph I cited from Christopher Tucker, that would reduce our population to 2 billion in 125 years. Some think we should drop more rapidly. Some think we should drop slower. I think that is a good place to start.

I don't get into specifics on how we would lower the birth rate, but some suggestions we can consider include:

1. Make it cool not to have children. Too many people have children simply because that is what adults are supposed to do. It's a status symbol.
2. Let people know that parenting is important, but we may already have too many people volunteering for the role of parent. If everybody in your town is a firefighter, for instance, maybe you could find a different way to serve the community. If most of the people in your community are raising children, maybe you could serve the future in a different way.
3. Make abortions and contraceptives widely available. Yes, to some people these are easily available, but in other countries they are not. The poor often do not have access. Even in America, this is becoming a problem.
4. Stand in opposition to religious teachings such as Quiverfull that argue that Christians should have a house full of kids.
5. Oppose religious objections to birth control.
6. Help poor countries get safety nets so people don't need to rely on a large family as their retirement plan.
7. Actively explain the problems with overshoot and why reducing family size will help.
8. In America, have a standard deduction of 2 children, regardless of how many children you have. Even if you have 0 children or 12, you get 2 deductions.
9. Make parents pay for most of the costs of schooling and other child-rearing costs for any child born after 2025. If people complain this would be too much burden on poor people, use some of the tax money that goes to schools to go directly to poor people. They can use it to buy a decent car and house, or to have children that they have financial responsibility for. If it is framed that way, I think most people will choose to be dinks (double income, no kids).
10. When people get pregnant, make sure they know the new responsibilities they will have, including new financial arrangements. Make sure they know of the option of abortion and that it is available to them.
10. For those that like to participate in raising the children that have been born--and most people should--provide community programs where all can participate in raising the next generation without having children of their own. It takes a community.

These are a few suggestions of the type of things we could consider. I am sure we could make the list better.

What else are you looking for?

 

[steve_bank]

We know the problems, problems unless you are a climate denier.

The question is if anything can be done that does not lead to economic problems.

Merle seems to be promoting a global welfare system. Again how would that work in the details without leading to a genreal economic problem.


It has all been tried before, tax your way to social justice. The motto of Seattle and Washington progressives.

State Socialism (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Overview

According to William Harbutt Dawson, despite being labeled socialist by his opponents, Bismarck's social legislation sought to preserve the existing economic order and state in Germany. This was in stark contrast to socialists, who sought to subvert the power of the existing state and eventually replace the capitalist order with a socialist economy.[9]

The Prussian welfare state was developed by the German academic Sozialpolitiker (Social Policy Supporter) group, intellectually associated with the historical school of economics. At the time, the historical school of economics influenced social democracy in the United Kingdom and progressivism in the United States as well as the current post-World War II German economy (the social market economy) which is a continuation of similar policies.

 

[Elixir]

1. Make it cool not to have children.
2. Let people know that parenting is important
3. Make abortions and contraceptives widely available. Yes, to some people these are easily available, but in other countries they are not. The poor often do not have access. Even in America, this is becoming a problem.
4. Stand in opposition to religious teachings
5. Oppose religious objections to birth control.
6. Help poor countries get safety nets
7. Actively explain the problems

Yeah, and everyone gets a pony.

8. In America, have a standard deduction of 2 children

Gold star for that one. A specific change that could help change some people's thinking, but then you go and undo whatever good it did ...

9. Make parents pay for most of the costs of schooling and other child-rearing costs for any child born after 2025.

That's flat crazy. Education is THE SINGLE MOST HUMANE AND EFFECTIVE form of birth control there is. People who know better tend to not have too many kids.

10. When people get pregnant, make sure they know the new responsibilities they will have, including new financial arrangements. Make sure they know of the option of abortion and that it is available to them.
10. For those that like to participate in raising the children that have been born--and most people should--provide community programs where all can participate in raising the next generation without having children of their own. It takes a community.

Those tens belong in with the first 7 pies in the sky.

 

[bilby]

One billion doesn't appear from nowhere. According to the research, our population never got to one billion until recent times.

Our population never got to any figure until "recent times", depending on how you define "recent".

In 1600, world population was estimated at around 600 million.

By the start of the Industrial Revolution*, (ie before any effects of that Revolution had been realised), it was about 770 million.

When the first steam railway was built in 1804, it was estimated to be one billion.

So was the 'carrying capacity' of the pre-industrial world 600, 770, or 1,000 million? What makes any of these the "right" number? All are very wooly and crude estimates of population anyway.

Regardless, the pre-industrial "carrying capacity", if it could be determined, is completely useless in estimating current "carrying capacity". So, again, how do you know that eight billion is greater than X, when you don't know anything about X, other than that it is probably far greater than one billion?






* I have used 1760, but if you pick a different start point, you get a wildly different estimated "carrying capacity". Which is my entire point.

 

[bilby]

Given that we are in overshoot now

THAT IS NOT A GIVEN, it is the point in dispute.

 

[Bomb#20]

There were huge surges in population associated with certain events

Yup, if Thag the Caveman were alive in 535CE, he might be AGHAST at the fact that the wooly mammoth and other megafauna had disappeared.

Not a chance. Thag the Caveman never heard of a wooly mammoth in his life.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Roughly steady state" meaning "always growing". That very "roughly".

Population growth has been significant for a LONG time; So regardless of what endpoint you select, you see a rapid increase at the end of your dataset, with a relatively "fairly flat" period at the beginning.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population lets you generate graphs with endpoints before today.

This is the population data up to 1200CE:

View attachment 45319
Looks like King John should have been seriously alarmed; Population was in a "roughly steady state", until shortly before his time.

The trouble with incessantly throwing exponential curves at one another is that graphs of exponential curves wash out all the interesting detail. You keep implying that the people who are currently seriously alarmed are alarmed for reasons that would have been equally alarming at any other point in history. That is a severe misreading of the population figures. Does it really look like King John should have been seriously alarmed by the part of this graph up to 1200CE?



(Note: We're still in the >0.9% part of the spike; the part of the graph after that is just somebody's guess. If it's right then the problem is correcting itself; but it's still just a guess.)

(Source: http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-5-Wright.pdf )

 

[Elixir]

Does it really look like King John should have been seriously alarmed by the part of this graph up to 1200CE?

If his seers were worth a goddam, he would have been!

 

[Merle]

1. Make it cool not to have children.
2. Let people know that parenting is important
3. Make abortions and contraceptives widely available. Yes, to some people these are easily available, but in other countries they are not. The poor often do not have access. Even in America, this is becoming a problem.
4. Stand in opposition to religious teachings
5. Oppose religious objections to birth control.
6. Help poor countries get safety nets
7. Actively explain the problems

Yeah, and everyone gets a pony.

8. In America, have a standard deduction of 2 children

Gold star for that one. A specific change that could help change some people's thinking, but then you go and undo whatever good it did ...

9. Make parents pay for most of the costs of schooling and other child-rearing costs for any child born after 2025.

That's flat crazy. Education is THE SINGLE MOST HUMANE AND EFFECTIVE form of birth control there is. People who know better tend to not have too many kids.

10. When people get pregnant, make sure they know the new responsibilities they will have, including new financial arrangements. Make sure they know of the option of abortion and that it is available to them.
10. For those that like to participate in raising the children that have been born--and most people should--provide community programs where all can participate in raising the next generation without having children of their own. It takes a community.

Those tens belong in with the first 7 pies in the sky.

One wrong and ten right? I guess it is a good thing I had two tens. So I got ten out of ten correct?

In no sense would #9 make school optional. If somebody gets pregnant, they would have the option of having an abortion. If they choose not, then they would become responsible for financing the education of the child. The child has to go to school regardless.

I am not saying we need to do it. I am just brainstorming some ideas. Do you have a better idea we can use?

 

[Elixir]

Given that we are in overshoot now

THAT IS NOT A GIVEN, it is the point in dispute.

You are disputing it … not sure who else here fully agrees with you. I’d expect some level of loud, vehement apathy about overshoot from some quarters (Santa Monica comes to mind) but not a lot of “I’m okay with as many people as can be made to think they’re having fun”.

Personally I think that given our current implementation of available tech, we are in major friggin overshoot. I think that has been the case for my entire life and probably for a while before that. But it doesn’t matter. I’m sad for the degradation of the biosphere, but my druthers are hardly a factor. Obviously (to me) we’re not going to get off our asses and suddenly collectively start doing things right, so we’re going to need more wars, plagues, volcanism and asteroid strikes, or we could be in real trouble.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think many really grasp the scope of the issue.

The current world population is 8,089,827,941 as of Thursday, February 8, 2024 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometer. The term "World Population" refers to the human population (the total number of humans currently living) of the world.

All those people fractured across political, religious, ethnic, cultural, national, tribal, and economic views.

Russia and China thumb their noses at the western systems out of national pride.

The Mid East chooses self destruction over compromise.

Whatever idea you come up with how do you get buy in? Our political system has failed unable to govern nationally.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think many really grasp the scope of the issue.

I think an outside observer would look at the human population “issue” as self-correcting. Divorcing the pain of the correction from the real and present carrying capacity of the planet, this is just a fleeting blip on the temporal radar.

 

[Elixir]

In no sense would #9 make school optional.

So you’re setting a floor on taxes that parents have to pay if they have kids, regardless of their income? What if the real cost of education is greater than their income? Do they they pay all their income to the government, then starve to death so their kids can go to mandatory school?

School is already already available for “free”, and kids are dumb as fuck because so many of them are homeskoold or in religious schools.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plant and animal species that go extinct aren't coming back. Ecosystems being taken over by monoculture and suburbia with a McDonald's on every block are gone and won't come back.

Yes, and that's not a good thing. But it's not going to take us out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Farming secures the food supply, enables permanent settlements, towns and cities. Even that has its limits, which is why our population never exceeded one billion for our entire existence.

It was only the advent of the industrial revolution, large scale agriculture, machinery, medicine, etc, that enabled our spike in numbers and the related issues that we have experienced.

Except the pre-industrial farming system was not remotely sustainable. Wood was not being harvested at a renewable rate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does "under one billion represents long term carrying capacity" (sic)?
....
It's a suspiciously round number for something that has been calculated from real data, rather than being pulled from somebody's rectum.

Just the opposite. There are many unknowns and the science is very difficult. You should be suspicious if someone presents this "carrying capacity" with TWO significant digits.

You're a smart guy, bilby, and probably know this yourself. That you jerk out the response you did makes us wonder if you're taking the conversation seriously.

I don't believe we know the answer to one digit, let alone two.