We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Loren Pechtel]

Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?

No. A lack of scientific spending will not damage the economy. Rather, a lack of scientific spending will keep us from finding answers that might save us.

So, if there is a population that has 2x births per year and makes a major discovery every y years, why is that better than a population that has x births per year and makes a major discovery every 2y years? Either way, the number of births before the next major discovery is 2xy.

I am still trying to figure out how you know the second condition ends in failure.

If you want to understand you need to put away the strawman.

You are treating scientific discovery as directly related to the population, but that's not how it works. Scientific discovery is a function of how much discretionary income people have. Lowering the standard of living lowers the % of effort that will go into science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you were permitted to build and run a nuclear plant to an identical quality standard as is routine for coal power plants (or equally, if coal
plants were required to meet the routine quality standard of the nuclear industry), you should expect to get electricity for around a tenth of the price from the nuke than from the coal plant.

That you don't see that difference in the real world is almost entirely a consequence of the difference in regulatory environments between the two technologies.

You are assuming a linear relationship, something I think we have no basis to assume. While I have no doubt that at equal safety standards nuke would be far cheaper I see nothing that justifies figuring any particular ratio.

 

[Swammerdami]

Habitat destruction (and especially extinctions) is a major drawback of human overpopulation, perhaps more important than climate change (though warming is one of several causes of habitat destruction). Coral reefs are one example of lost habitat but I was unaware of the following details until I read https://research.gatech.edu/feature/sea-cucumber .

Corals are foundational for ocean life. Known as the rainforests of the sea, they create habitats for 25% of all marine organisms, despite only covering less than 1% of the ocean’s area.

Coral patches the width and height of basketball arenas used to be common throughout the world’s oceans. But due to numerous human-generated stresses and coral disease, which is known to be associated with ocean sediments, most of the world’s coral is gone.
. . . ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45730-0 )
In first-of-its-kind research, Hay, along with research scientist Cody Clements, discovered a crucial missing element that plays a profound role in keeping coral healthy — an animal of overlooked importance known as a sea cucumber. Their study, undertaken in remote tropical islands in the Pacific, investigated the role that sea cucumbers play in coral health. The small, unassuming, sediment-eating organisms function like autonomous vacuum cleaners of the ocean floor. But, because they have been overharvested for decades for food and cannot reproduce effectively when in low densities, they are now rare and slow to recover following harvests. They have been gone so long that it wasn’t known exactly how important they are — until now.

“We knew that removing big predators has cascading effects that commonly change how ecosystems are organized and how they function,” said Hay. “What we didn’t know is what would happen following removal of detritivores — or as we like to call them, the janitors of the system.”
. . . They observed that corals without sea cucumbers present were 15 times more likely to die. . . . Sea cucumbers seemed to be a missing component of what had been, at one point, an intact ecological system. Before humans started harvesting these sediment-cleaning organisms, they had helped protect corals from disease.

I suppose the "No such thing as overpopulation; no such thing as 'intrinsic worth'" crowd will simply claim that with one-tenth the population, the elite would simply do their best to increase their destruction of coral ten-fold. But I thought some an open-minded Infidels might find this interesting.

 

[DBT]

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart?

The problem is that you come along preaching the gospel of population reduction with about as much evidence of it's effectiveness as any other preacher.

It's obviously a matter of sustainability. A finite space, the planet in this instance, and its ecosystems can only support a certain number of people. What the tipping point happens to be is determined by both the number of people and their rate of consumption. Physics, pure and simple.

 

[bilby]

the "No such thing as overpopulation; no such thing as 'intrinsic worth'" crowd

No wonder you imagine overpopulation to be a problem, if you imagine me to be a "crowd".

 

[bilby]

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart?

The problem is that you come along preaching the gospel of population reduction with about as much evidence of it's effectiveness as any other preacher.

It's obviously a matter of sustainability. A finite space, the planet in this instance, and its ecosystems can only support a certain number of people. What the tipping point happens to be is determined by both the number of people and their rate of consumption. Physics, pure and simple.

The world is very big^{[citation needed]}, so if you don't know where that tipping point is, it's not a bad assumption that we are a long way from reaching it yet.

A lot of people have wrongly predicted the end of days, doom, gloom, and misery, for several millennia, and yet we observe that things are actually getting better. This also suggests that we are a long way from reaching that tipping point.

I have yet to see an instance of an environmental problem that cannot be resolved without recourse to population reductions. Over fishing can be (and in some cases has been) addressed without population reductions. Fossil fuel use was slashed by the French, despite increasing numbers of Frenchmen. Over population isn't a thing; Environmental vandalism is a thing, and population alarmists enable that vandalism, by their insistence that no solutions other than population reductions are even possible.

 

[steve_bank]

Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?

No. A lack of scientific spending will not damage the economy. Rather, a lack of scientific spending will keep us from finding answers that might save us.

So, if there is a population that has 2x births per year and makes a major discovery every y years, why is that better than a population that has x births per year and makes a major discovery every 2y years? Either way, the number of births before the next major discovery is 2xy.

I am still trying to figure out how you know the second condition ends in failure.

If you want to understand you need to put away the strawman.

You are treating scientific discovery as directly related to the population, but that's not how it works. Scientific discovery is a function of how much discretionary income people have. Lowering the standard of living lowers the % of effort that will go into science.

Good point.

I wreathed a show on how science moved form the Arabs and Persians to Europe. Throughout hstory science follows the money, or excess wealth.

Being able to send probes to Mars and essentially people expends on a productive eff cent economic system. Colliders. Space telescopes.

 

[DBT]

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart?

The problem is that you come along preaching the gospel of population reduction with about as much evidence of it's effectiveness as any other preacher.

It's obviously a matter of sustainability. A finite space, the planet in this instance, and its ecosystems can only support a certain number of people. What the tipping point happens to be is determined by both the number of people and their rate of consumption. Physics, pure and simple.

The world is very big^{[citation needed]}, so if you don't know where that tipping point is, it's not a bad assumption that we are a long way from reaching it yet.

A lot of people have wrongly predicted the end of days, doom, gloom, and misery, for several millennia, and yet we observe that things are actually getting better. This also suggests that we are a long way from reaching that tipping point.

I have yet to see an instance of an environmental problem that cannot be resolved without recourse to population reductions. Over fishing can be (and in some cases has been) addressed without population reductions. Fossil fuel use was slashed by the French, despite increasing numbers of Frenchmen. Over population isn't a thing; Environmental vandalism is a thing, and population alarmists enable that vandalism, by their insistence that no solutions other than population reductions are even possible.

Ecosystems are degrading and being lost as a result of our economic activities, clearing land for housing, farming, fishing, etc.

The evidence supports the proposition that we have already gone well down that road.

Abstract
Carrying capacity is the maximum number, density, or biomass of a population that a specific area can support sustainably. This likely varies over time and depends on environmental factors, resources, and the presence of predators, disease agents, and competitors over time. The concept of carrying capacity has been explicitly recognized for more than 175 years, and its use has waxed and waned during this time. Currently, the use of carrying capacity to describe any particular population requires caution, although the concept remains intuitive and invokes questions that challenge our fundamental understanding of factors that regulate populations over time and space.
An ecological deficit exists when the load imposed by a given human population on its own territory or habitat (e.g., region, country) exceeds the productive capacity of that habitat. Under these circumstances, if it wishes to avoid permanent damage to its local ecosystems, the population must use some biophysical goods and services imported from elsewhere (or, alternatively, lower its material standards).

Human load
The total human load imposed on the environment by a specified population is the product of population size times average per capita resource consumption and waste production. The concept of load recognizes that human carrying capacity is a function not only of population size but also of aggregate material and energy throughput. Thus, the human carrying capacity of a defined habitat is its maximum sustainability supportable load.''

 

[Merle]

My comment had to do with countries that have nuclear power. People claim that nuclear power would operate much more efficiently if certain regulations were changed. How do they know that? The claim is repeated endlessly, but nobody offers evidence.

We are comparing the places where nuclear power works vs the places it is uneconomic.

Seen any catastrophes out of France?

Economically? Yes. France has had a lot of economic trouble with their nuclear reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021

That's not evidence it's uneconomic.

Oh, so when S&P Global Ratings and Moody's downgrades the credit rating of a company, that's not a sign it is doing poorly?

 

[Merle]

Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?

No. A lack of scientific spending will not damage the economy. Rather, a lack of scientific spending will keep us from finding answers that might save us.

So, if there is a population that has 2x births per year and makes a major discovery every y years, why is that better than a population that has x births per year and makes a major discovery every 2y years? Either way, the number of births before the next major discovery is 2xy.

I am still trying to figure out how you know the second condition ends in failure.

If you want to understand you need to put away the strawman.

You are treating scientific discovery as directly related to the population, but that's not how it works. Scientific discovery is a function of how much discretionary income people have. Lowering the standard of living lowers the % of effort that will go into science.

OK, so if there is half the population science investment might be cut by more than half.

It wasn't until 1974 that population reached half of the population it is today. I contend that, even with a much lower population, we still had significant advances in science and technology before 1974.

 

[Elixir]

The evidence supports the proposition that we have already gone well down that road.

I agree. That the eventual effects of what is already lost are not yet fully apparent, doesn’t mean that those effects are not pending.
OTOH, since we are already flying blind as it were, it makes little sense to make extreme “corrections” that could turn out to aggravate rather than mitigate the undesirable impacts of humans upon the planet. That would include “population reduction” measures. Especially while there is a plethora of “little things” we can each do to modify our behavior in ways that are nearly guaranteed to help rather than hurt, it makes no sense to go around hunting dragons to slay.

 

[DBT]

The evidence supports the proposition that we have already gone well down that road.

I agree. That the eventual effects of what is already lost are not yet fully apparent, doesn’t mean that those effects are not pending.
OTOH, since we are already flying blind as it were, it makes little sense to make extreme “corrections” that could turn out to aggravate rather than mitigate the undesirable impacts of humans upon the planet. That would include “population reduction” measures. Especially while there is a plethora of “little things” we can each do to modify our behavior in ways that are nearly guaranteed to help rather than hurt, it makes no sense to go around hunting dragons to slay.

Population numbers should not have come to eight billion and growing. Population reduction is probably not something that would work without consequences if implemented and enforced by governments.

I think it's just a case of 'we have made our bed and now we must lie in it,' as our bandaid measures into the future play out.

I suspect that we have created a worldwide experiment that is yet to play out, where sooner or later the results of our measures or actions will become our reality.

 

[Merle]

The evidence supports the proposition that we have already gone well down that road.

I agree. That the eventual effects of what is already lost are not yet fully apparent, doesn’t mean that those effects are not pending.
OTOH, since we are already flying blind as it were, it makes little sense to make extreme “corrections” that could turn out to aggravate rather than mitigate the undesirable impacts of humans upon the planet. That would include “population reduction” measures. Especially while there is a plethora of “little things” we can each do to modify our behavior in ways that are nearly guaranteed to help rather than hurt, it makes no sense to go around hunting dragons to slay.

Population numbers should not have come to eight billion and growing. Population reduction is probably not something that would work without consequences if implemented and enforced by governments.

I think it's just a case of 'we have made our bed and now we must lie in it,' as our bandaid measures into the future play out.

I suspect that we have created a worldwide experiment that is yet to play out, where sooner or later the results of our measures or actions will become our reality.

I agree.

In 1968, when The Population Bomb was written, we had 3.5 billion people. We could have chosen to level off near 4 billion. We would be in a far better position now if we had done that.

Today, it may well be too late.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is who is this 'we'?

Does it mean a global population of rational logical humans who can put logic and reason over instinct and personal feelings for the common good?

In the 70s I had a philosophy teacher who had attended a state department conference. The gist of it was a prediction that incoming years the have nots will over run the haves, witnessed today by our birder problem and Europe in recent years.

I saw a government paper from the 90s predicting LA will run out of drinking water.

It is all predictable and there are always people who see tye future.

The problem is politics and human nature. Our experiment in racial, ethnic, religious, political and cultural diversity is not working. Too many competing interests and a lack of common social-political bond and consensus.

China's solution is a strict authoritarian social ad political control coupled with a mostly homogeneous racial and ethnic population. I think it is difficult or near impossible to gt perm net residence in China. I knew a woman who around 20 years in China and Hong Kong handling housing and trans portion for foreign workers and companies. When she reached 65 she was kicked out.

Our Anrcan cultur [recludes such controls.

 

[bilby]

We could have chosen to level off near 4 billion.

No, we couldn't. And we didn't. And it's a good thing we didn't try, because any credible attempt to do so would have entailed horrors that would have made the worst tyrants in history look like a bunch of devil-may-care hippies.

 

[DBT]

We are supposed to be intelligent enough to self regulate without it being imposed upon us. And yeah, people in developing nations needed more children as a de facto retirement plan (economic), amongst other reasons, contraception, etc...

 

[Merle]

You are treating scientific discovery as directly related to the population, but that's not how it works. Scientific discovery is a function of how much discretionary income people have.

Suppose that we had leveled off at 4 billion people, which is the population we had in 1974. In what sense would that have forced the scientific discovery rate per capita to be lower?

In the 60's and 70's many women stayed home or did menial jobs because that is what society expected. Suppose we had instead made it easier and more widely accepted for women who chose to do so to get jobs in science and technology? Sure, we still needed homemakers. But suppose 20% of the women who had become homemakers had chosen a career in science and technology instead? Science and technology effort per capita would have gone way up, not down.

In the last half of the 20th century, there were huge expenses in building infrastructure, housing, commercial facilities and industrial facilities to support the exploding population. Suppose we had leveled off at 4 billion people. We could have confined most of our building efforts to replacing and rebuilding obsolete buildings. Instead, we "Paved Paradise, and put up a Parking Lot." Suppose many of those builders had instead worked in science and technology. Again, per capita spending on technology would have gone way up, not down.

 

[Merle]

We could have chosen to level off near 4 billion.

No, we couldn't. And we didn't. And it's a good thing we didn't try, because any credible attempt to do so would have entailed horrors that would have made the worst tyrants in history look like a bunch of devil-may-care hippies.

Would you get your mind out of the gutter, please?

We have discussed multiple ways that people could use to humanely restrain the growth of population. You simply ignore it all, and claim there is no option but to go into the gutter. Nobody here is suggesting that we turn the worst tyrants in history lose on a killing spree, for crying out loud.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart?

The problem is that you come along preaching the gospel of population reduction with about as much evidence of it's effectiveness as any other preacher.

It's obviously a matter of sustainability. A finite space, the planet in this instance, and its ecosystems can only support a certain number of people. What the tipping point happens to be is determined by both the number of people and their rate of consumption. Physics, pure and simple.

The point is sustainable requires some sort of renewal. And most resources don't renew.

 

[DBT]

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart?

The problem is that you come along preaching the gospel of population reduction with about as much evidence of it's effectiveness as any other preacher.

It's obviously a matter of sustainability. A finite space, the planet in this instance, and its ecosystems can only support a certain number of people. What the tipping point happens to be is determined by both the number of people and their rate of consumption. Physics, pure and simple.

The point is sustainable requires some sort of renewal. And most resources don't renew.

Yes, that is the point. Ecosystems can be maintained if they are not pushed beyond their ability to renew. One billion people are obviously going have far less impact on ecosystems and resources, extending the ready availability of non renewables for far longer, especially if we had not cultivated a throwaway consumer society.