When will there be too many people ?

[bilby]

There will NEVER be 'too many' people. Not this century, not next, not ever.

Quibbling over definitions ("too many")?
Obviously that is a subjective thing. If there are "too many" people for the carrying capacity of the planet, there will be a die-off.

There's no reasonable definition of 'too many' that will ever be reached. The discussion in the thread is all about resources, and we are not going to get close to any resource constraints before total population begins to fall again.

Of course, a misanthropist can declare that there are 'too many' at any number - but that's both subjective and meaningless. Even if that misanthropic position was what was meant, there wouldn't be a non-arbitrary future year in which this threshold would be crossed. Perhaps 100,000 BCE?

Food production is the most plausible objective constraint, and we are never going to get close to a population that it's physically impossible to feed with current technology and available land.

Sure, we could fuck things up for ourselves; but again, we can do that at almost any level of population. A billion people just take seven times as long to fuck the climate as seven billion do, if either group are too stupid to do the necessary things to avoid that. It only takes a handful of people to start a nuclear war. A small population is no better protected against an asteroid strike than a large one.

The OP question rests on a number of deeply flawed and unrealistic assumptions. There is no basis in fact to imagine that the question 'When will there be too many people?', has any answer other than 'never' (or 'almost certainly never, and if not, then so far in the future as to be impossible to predict', which carries the same information content as 'never').

 

[bilby]

People need to be aware of the dangers of linear thinking. Carrying capacity is dependent on technological advancement. Technological advancement is dependent on the number of researchers working in scientific fields. The number of scientific researchers is dependent on the number of people on the planet. More people means more advancement in food production, technology, medicine, energy. All of it, faster and faster, thus allowing for even more people.

There's probably a limit - but at this point it's unknowable. Any numbers given would just be wild guesses, and probably wrong.

^This.

There's no good reason to expect that a limit will ever be approached.

Of course, in millions of years, even unlikely things become possible. But speculation about when something unlikely might happen is futile.

 

[Elixir]

People need to be aware of the dangers of linear thinking.

Indeed.

Carrying capacity is dependent on technological advancement.

...among other things.

Technological advancement is dependent on the number of researchers working in scientific fields.

It is more dependent upon the quality of such people than upon their numbers. Historically, only a miniscule percentage of individuals and teams pursuing scientific advancements actually attain what they set out to accomplish. Of course they all build on previous accomplishments, so one might expect quantity to become an increasing factor, but it is not dominant ... yet.

The number of scientific researchers is dependent on the number of people on the planet. More people means more advancement in food production, technology, medicine, energy. All of it, faster and faster, thus allowing for even more people.

In linear fashion, eh?

There are variables that could overwhelm the tech advancement factor, not the least of which (IMHO) are possible biological repercussions. Some such repercussions could involve the previously mentioned vulnerability of our species to pandemics effecting either our food supplies (which consist of ever-smaller varieties of plants and animals), or changes to humans' intellectual functionality (e.g. Trump, Trumpsters ). But your conclusion is inarguable:

Any numbers given would just be wild guesses, and probably wrong.

Personally, I take little solace from reassurances such as what Bilby offered, or from the "accelerated tech" factor, oft cited as a panacea for all that might befall us.

 

[beero1000]

Indeed.

Carrying capacity is dependent on technological advancement.

...among other things.

So?

Technological advancement is dependent on the number of researchers working in scientific fields.

It is more dependent upon the quality of such people than upon their numbers. Historically, only a miniscule percentage of individuals and teams pursuing scientific advancements actually attain what they set out to accomplish. Of course they all build on previous accomplishments, so one might expect quantity to become an increasing factor, but it is not dominant ... yet.

That doesn't matter .1% of 1 billion is still 1000 times more than .1% of 1 million. Combine that with a decreasing barrier to entry and you get more and more brainpower focused on problems. There are more geniuses in China than there are people of any intelligence in the US - once they all get access to education who knows what they will discover?

The number of scientific researchers is dependent on the number of people on the planet. More people means more advancement in food production, technology, medicine, energy. All of it, faster and faster, thus allowing for even more people.

In linear fashion, eh?

No.

There are variables that could overwhelm the tech advancement factor, not the least of which (IMHO) are possible biological repercussions. Some such repercussions could involve the previously mentioned vulnerability of our species to pandemics effecting either our food supplies (which consist of ever-smaller varieties of plants and animals), or changes to humans' intellectual functionality (e.g. Trump, Trumpsters ). But your conclusion is inarguable:

Any numbers given would just be wild guesses, and probably wrong.

Personally, I take little solace from reassurances such as what Bilby offered, or from the "accelerated tech" factor, oft cited as a panacea for all that might befall us.

Sure, they could - but they might not and I'm not arguing that the population must grow indefinitely - just that no limit for carrying capacity can be given.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not arguing that the population must grow indefinitely - just that no limit for carrying capacity can be given.

I think that you, Bilby and I all agree on that.
What is left of the OP is to speculate about which limiting factor(s) will dominate the near future. If Hans Rosling is correct, it's a non-issue, growing tech or not - we should be more concerned with super volcanoes and asteroid strikes than with anthropogenic catastrophes like famines, plagues and wars.

The OP question rests on a number of deeply flawed and unrealistic assumptions. There is no basis in fact to imagine that the question 'When will there be too many people?', has any answer other than 'never' (or 'almost certainly never, and if not, then so far in the future as to be impossible to predict', which carries the same information content as 'never').

The OP question is as meaningless as it is provocative, I agree. But as an inhabitant of this earth, I gotta say I preferred it the way it was 55-60 years ago to what it's like today. Most of the places of natural wonder that inspired me as a youth are ... for lack of a better word, spoiled. I don't want to live in a "trillion world", even if it's possible.

 

[bilby]

I think that you, Bilby and I all agree on that.
What is left of the OP is to speculate about which limiting factor(s) will dominate the near future. If Hans Rosling is correct, it's a non-issue, growing tech or not - we should be more concerned with super volcanoes and asteroid strikes than with anthropogenic catastrophes like famines, plagues and wars.

The OP question rests on a number of deeply flawed and unrealistic assumptions. There is no basis in fact to imagine that the question 'When will there be too many people?', has any answer other than 'never' (or 'almost certainly never, and if not, then so far in the future as to be impossible to predict', which carries the same information content as 'never').

The OP question is as meaningless as it is provocative, I agree. But as an inhabitant of this earth, I gotta say I preferred it the way it was 55-60 years ago to what it's like today. Most of the places of natural wonder that inspired me as a youth are ... for lack of a better word, spoiled. I don't want to live in a "trillion world", even if it's possible.

Nostalgia and selective memory are not good substitutes for reality, despite their apparent popularity.

Things were truly ugly in the 1960s in many ways, and the negative changes since then owe little to population numbers. Places that were isolated and 'unspoiled' back then were not protected from despoiling tourists or industry by the small population; they were protected by the lack of technology. Most people couldn't afford to go to the nice places, so they were effectively reserved for those lucky enough to live nearby; and/or the infrastructure and/or wealth required to exploit those places was inadequate at the time - if population had remained static, they would likely have been despoiled anyway.

Such places get overrun once they are well known, because people come from miles around to experience them. There are still lots of remote places that remain unspoiled; but the reason they remain unspoiled is that they are little known, hard to reach, or both.

Your problem isn't with population; it's with infrastructure, technology, and wealth. US population hasn't grown all that much since the 1960s - only by about 50%, and almost entirely in cities; the rural population has actually fallen - so it is unlikely that raw numbers of people are the major cause of the despoilment you are reporting. Most of the population growth in the world has taken place in Africa, where life is VASTLY better today than it was 55-60 years ago.

 

[Elixir]

I think that you, Bilby and I all agree on that.
What is left of the OP is to speculate about which limiting factor(s) will dominate the near future. If Hans Rosling is correct, it's a non-issue, growing tech or not - we should be more concerned with super volcanoes and asteroid strikes than with anthropogenic catastrophes like famines, plagues and wars.



The OP question is as meaningless as it is provocative, I agree. But as an inhabitant of this earth, I gotta say I preferred it the way it was 55-60 years ago to what it's like today. Most of the places of natural wonder that inspired me as a youth are ... for lack of a better word, spoiled. I don't want to live in a "trillion world", even if it's possible.

Nostalgia and selective memory are not good substitutes for reality, despite their apparent popularity.

Nonetheless, memories and current sensory input are really all any of us has. They ARE, for each of us, our "reality". Objective reality is not something we can internalize.

Things were truly ugly in the 1960s in many ways, and the negative changes since then owe little to population numbers.

Of course! I was very lucky indeed not to have been aware of most of the widespread human suffering and angst that was going on until much later.

Places that were isolated and 'unspoiled' back then were not protected from despoiling tourists by the small population; they were protected by the lack of technology. Most people couldn't afford to go to the nice places, so they were effectively reserved for those lucky enough to live nearby.

I have to disagree that there is a clear cut causality there, independent of population size. If the total global population in 1950 had been 10,000 people armed with today's tech, I doubt that they (we) could have despoiled the entire Florida coastline (about 1300 miles, depending on how many of its curves one plots) or the woods of New England (which remain remarkably pristine in places, even today) during the time I've been alive. OTOH, if global population had been on the order of 10 billion with today's tech, I doubt that I'd have ever experienced anything like what I did. But to your real point, yes - my "problem" (futile complaint, really) has to do with infrastructure, technology and - most of all - wealth. I have strident objection to Trump's plan to turn over US parks and monuments to miners and drillers, even though I'll never visit most of those places and they will remain inaccessible to most people. Irrational perhaps, but there it is. We're not an entirely rational species (the probably cause of our eventual demise, IMHO).

TOO MANY PEOPLE!
If you disagree, you're WRONG.

 

[bilby]

Nostalgia and selective memory are not good substitutes for reality, despite their apparent popularity.

Nonetheless, memories and current sensory input are really all any of us has. They ARE, for each of us, our "reality". Objective reality is not something we can internalize.

True; But it IS something we should use as our basis for decision making, if we wish to improve our lot.

Things were truly ugly in the 1960s in many ways, and the negative changes since then owe little to population numbers.

Of course! I was very lucky indeed not to have been aware of most of the widespread human suffering and angst that was going on until much later.

Places that were isolated and 'unspoiled' back then were not protected from despoiling tourists by the small population; they were protected by the lack of technology. Most people couldn't afford to go to the nice places, so they were effectively reserved for those lucky enough to live nearby.

I have to disagree that there is a clear cut causality there, independent of population size. If the total global population in 1950 had been 10,000 people armed with today's tech, I doubt that they (we) could have despoiled the entire Florida coastline (about 1300 miles, depending on how many of its curves one plots) or the woods of New England (which remain remarkably pristine in places, even today) during the time I've been alive. OTOH, if global population had been on the order of 10 billion with today's tech, I doubt that I'd have ever experienced anything like what I did. But to your real point, yes - my "problem" (futile complaint, really) has to do with infrastructure, technology and - most of all - wealth. I have strident objection to Trump's plan to turn over US parks and monuments to miners and drillers, even though I'll never visit most of those places and they will remain inaccessible to most people. Irrational perhaps, but there it is. We're not an entirely rational species (the probably cause of our eventual demise, IMHO).

TOO MANY PEOPLE!
If you disagree, you're WRONG.

Simple but wrong answers are more popular than complex but right answers; but they are far less useful or effective.

And 'too many people' has a distressing habit of becoming shorthand for 'too many of THEM (and about the right number of US)', which leads to consequences that Mike Godwin suggests could seriously damage the credibility of further discussion.

 

[Elixir]

.... 'too many people' has a distressing habit of becoming shorthand for 'too many of THEM (and about the right number of US)', which leads to consequences that Mike Godwin suggests could seriously damage the credibility of further discussion.

Of COURSE it's about THEM! After all, THEY'RE the ones who fucked it all up!
I never killed a bird or caught a fish or cut down a tree.
No, wait... that's not true.
Oh shit - I'm THEM!

Seriously Bilby, even if we reach a population extreme and become a population of ten trillion brains in jars, and our subjective experiences cease to have any relationship with "objective reality", what purpose is served? What purpose would be served by an infinite supply of complex, correct answers? I submit that that depends entirely on the question that those complex, correct answers are designed to address. I won't summarily throw out the OP question for being meaningless, but rather, embrace it for its provocative nature. I'd be interested in your vision for the end that might be attained through "right" answers - that is, what are the truly pressing questions that are begging for "right" answers in your opinion?

 

[bilby]

.... 'too many people' has a distressing habit of becoming shorthand for 'too many of THEM (and about the right number of US)', which leads to consequences that Mike Godwin suggests could seriously damage the credibility of further discussion.

Of COURSE it's about THEM! After all, THEY'RE the ones who fucked it all up!
I never killed a bird or caught a fish or cut down a tree.
No, wait... that's not true.
Oh shit - I'm THEM!

Seriously Bilby, even if we reach a population extreme and become a population of ten trillion brains in jars, and our subjective experiences cease to have any relationship with "objective reality", what purpose is served? What purpose would be served by an infinite supply of complex, correct answers? I submit that that depends entirely on the question that those complex, correct answers are designed to address. I won't summarily throw out the OP question for being meaningless, but rather, embrace it for its provocative nature. I'd be interested in your vision for the end that might be attained through "right" answers - that is, what are the truly pressing questions that are begging for "right" answers in your opinion?

In this thread, the pressing question is 'What should be done about population?'; and the correct answer is 'Keep doing the things we are doing'; or as a wise man once said:

"The only thing we need to do to prevent population from re-emerging as a problem for humanity is to keep up the fight to educate people (particularly girls), and to keep up the push to make contraception freely available to all who want it (particularly women). The only obstacles standing in the way of this today are Christianity and Islam, both of which are working hard against both education for girls and contraception for anybody. Current trends suggest that it is unlikely that they will succeed in dragging us back into the abyss - but it's far from being a sure thing, so we need to keep pushing.

Famine has pretty much disappeared from the world. FAR more people suffer today due to eating too much, than due to not having enough to eat. If you don't want famine to return, the best thing you can do is to donate to organizations that educate girls in the Third world (particularly sub-Saharan Africa); and avoid supporting organizations that promote religion in the Third World (particularly sub-Saharan Africa).

And don't worry about how many kids you have - If everyone on the planet has the number they actually want (and access to the means to avoid any they don't want), we won't have a problem."​

Current trends suggest a fairly stable, or slightly declining, population in the long term, starting from a peak between 10-12 billion sometime around 2050. That's close enough to today (both in magnitude and in timing) to make significant change unnecessary.

In short, the pressing questions begging for right answers today are NOT about population.

They are about how to improve quality of life for everybody.

"How do we increase the rate at which poor people become less poor?" is a good one. The answer to that is unknown, and it is unknown because it is HUGELY complex; essentially it boils down to the far more obviously difficult question 'How do economies actually work?'. Still, widespread high quality education will doubtless help here - it's difficult to see how smart people could consistently do significantly worse than dumb ones, at any rate.

"What should we do about Climate Change?" is another good one. The answer to that is (in large part) "Replace coal power plants with nuclear plants as quickly as possible"; But lots of people really hate that answer (just as lots of people really hate the idea of giving girls an education, or giving anybody access to contraception).

"What should we do to protect the planet from large meteors?" is another good one. It's less pressing, but we can't afford to completely ignore it.

I don't have a vision for the end though - there likely will be an end (human extinction), but unless we are very stupid and/or very unlucky, there's no reason why it should occur in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, my goal is to be happy, and to let as many other people as possible be happy too. What they want, in order to reach that goal, is up to them. But doing stupid things will make me unhappy - so I would rather they did a little less of that (again, education will help here).

If we teach people how things work - the basic mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry and biology - then I believe that they will make things work pretty well without much further imposition on their freedom to do as they like - Sufficiently educated people appear to generally not become immoral monsters. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Impositions on individual freedom should occur only where such impositions are reasonable to protect the freedom of others. Of course, that simple statement hides a political argument even more complex than the economic argument hiding behind "How do economies actually work?"; Starting with another really big question "What is freedom?".

We may need millions of years to answer these questions - or they may never be answerable. But applying severely wrong answers to these questions is unacceptable, because by definition, such severely wrong answers are disastrous.

 

[rousseau]

Bilby I'm not saying this with a tone of doubt, but do you have any reading material that will back up your claims.

They seem valid but this is a thing I'd enjoy reading some source material on to validate it in my own head.

 

[bilby]

Bilby I'm not saying this with a tone of doubt, but do you have any reading material that will back up your claims.

They seem valid but this is a thing I'd enjoy reading some source material on to validate it in my own head.

Sure; Which claim(s) in particular are you looking for information on? I am not using any particular reference here (other than those links given up-thread), but there's a metric shit-ton of stuff out there to support the factual basis for what I am saying; The 'joining of the dots' is coming directly from my brain, so unless and until I decide to write a book, you will need to make do with reading my comments here - but I am happy to answer any questions: I would welcome correction of any errors of fact; and discussion of opinions is what I am here for.

 

[rousseau]

Sounds like it's something I'd have to dig into myself.

 

[bilby]

Sounds like it's something I'd have to dig into myself.

Hans Rosling is a good place to start - Elixir posted a link to one of his TED talks upthread; Another good one is here:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

And an excellent explanation of Demographic Lag - What Rosling calls 'The great fill-up' - along with a discussion of how religion fits into the picture:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78[/YOUTUBE]

 

[rousseau]

I try to use Google Scholar whenever I can for stuff like this, a quick search for 'is human population a problem' came up with this link:

Human Population and the Global Environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force

Pretty out of date article but it seems to me to sum up the real problem. It's not so much 'will there be too many people', but more 'what's the ecological impact of our population at it's current size'.

Even then, however, to say 'there's too many people' is looking at the problem in the wrong way. So there's a lot of humans on earth. So what? What could have been done historically to change that fact? Put simply, it's a matter of reality that we have to adjust to. And maybe the problem isn't how many people there will be in the future, but rather how to finagle economic systems today so those actually already in the world are living environmentally sustainable lives.

 

[bilby]

I try to use Google Scholar whenever I can for stuff like this, a quick search for 'is human population a problem' came up with this link:

Human Population and the Global Environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force

Pretty out of date article but it seems to me to sum up the real problem. It's not so much 'will there be too many people', but more 'what's the ecological impact of our population at it's current size'.

Even then, however, to say 'there's too many people' is looking at the problem in the wrong way. So there's a lot of humans on earth. So what? What could have been done historically to change that fact? Put simply, it's a matter of reality that we have to adjust to. And maybe the problem isn't how many people there will be in the future, but rather how to finagle economic systems today so those actually already in the world are living environmentally sustainable lives.

Pretty much. But bearing in mind that as people have become richer, and have as a consequence, consumed more resources, the availability of resources (as measured by their price) has tended to increase (things tend to get cheaper over time, after adjusting for inflation*).

So resource exhaustion is not on the cards with current population levels. We have more food per capita today with >7 billion humans than we had in 1950 with <3 billion - and less land under cultivation for food. We have more iron in a single battleship than the entire annual iron production of the world at the height of the Roman Empire - which was the dominant force during the 'Iron Age', at a time when population was between 250 and 300 million (with an 'M').

While population is increasing, resource availability is increasing faster - and that has been the general trend since forever. So the question becomes 'Why should we expect that to change?' - and the answer is 'There's really no reason to expect that to change at all'.

Sure, there's a limit to the amount of stuff in the accessible layers of the Earth's crust; But that physical limit is INSANELY higher than the amount of stuff we have extracted so far. And all the stuff we have pulled out is still around in one form or another. The fact that we don't need to recycle most things, and that it is cheaper (often FAR cheaper) to just extract and refine new stuff from ore, is a strong indication that we are nowhere near hitting any resource limits - and of course, if we do approach such limits, recycling becomes a perfectly good option to stretch those limits a lot further, if needed.

The history of the world has been a history of stuff getting better. There have been minor setbacks; but the underlying trend is strongly positive. And the history of the world is also the history of people saying 'Well, it's worked up to now, but we are at the limit today, and it will all come crashing down soon'. People have been saying that for centuries. They have been wrong for centuries. There's no evidence that they are right this time.

It was very obvious in the mid 19th Century that the ecological impact of horse-drawn traffic on cities made them unsustainable above a certain size, and that if London continued to grow as it had in the 18th and early 19th centuries, we would all be up to our ears in manure by 1950.

It's obvious that we can't continue to burn coal, gas and oil for power for another century and not face dire consequences. But that's OK - Because we are no more forced to burn coal than we are forced to use horses to haul freight through cities.

It's obvious that we can't continue to have 7 children per woman, like we did in the 1850s. But that's OK, because most of the world now has only 2 children per woman, on average. And nobody needed to be forced into that change (despite which the Chinese forced them anyway - But that's Maoism for you).




*and inflation is just money getting cheaper over time

 

[Valjean]

Delete

 

[DrZoidberg]

Population projections are so scary that I can't even figure out how to find them. Maybe you can. I ran across a website that makes me wonder something, and I was just going to see if someone would do some math work for me. On this website the births today clock is moving a LOT faster than the deaths today clock. When you move down to Forest loss this year - CO2 emissions this year - Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year - People who died of hunger today - People with no access to a safe drinking water source... you may start to wonder when it is time to ease up on reproducing.

The worst numbers flickering on the page are about starvation. If they can't even feed the ones they already have, what the hell? Seems kooky that overweight numbers are higher than malnourishment numbers, and the money spent on weight loss would feed the starving 10x over. I mean... if you stare at those numbers too long you may get frustrated. Me, I'm just kind of confused at this point. I don't know if this is some psychic computer program... or real numbers being ran in by thousands of people smoking cigars and yelling into cup phones like 1930's gangsters. What is this thing?

As for humans, don't get me wrong. I love people. I wouldn't mind if the place became so overpopulated that crowded shantytown coffee can candles actually changed the way the planet looks from space. It would look beautiful. I wouldn't mind inhaling human skin cells in every breath, no matter where I go. I wouldn't mind to overshoot the population straight into the planet, eventually creating ugly mole people. Then they would be behaving more like mycelium, which is why I provided the fungus GIF at the beginning there. They would spread downward just as heavily, layer upon layer - as far as they can drill without bursting into flames. Just as long as they keep scrogging and spawning! That is very important. They are important beings with souls. Isn't it obvious in how passionately they kill everything else?

Down to business. Here are the numbers I need from you. At their current rate of breeding, how long until they eat all other animals into extinction? Factor infanticidal cannibalism as a food source near their end, because you know they're going to fight extinction as long as they can. They will probably eat the females first, so shave a few digits for that. Also, I need to know how many cubic feet they can compact into. I'm thinking four cubic feet could provide for a productive life of inhaling/exhaling air?

It may be a hard equation. The mass of the inhabitable earth, the known animals living on it.. and them. How long until they devour every single inch of it and beg the deaf ears of space (too late to make it there) for a fairy to come make it all right again? They will never stop breeding. It feels too good. The last two people left will probably be screwing when they die. Screwing while devouring each other. Yep, that is what will happen. I'd like the number to support that please. You know there is one floating around in numberland. I think you can find it because I beilieve in you.

There are a lot of things to factor before you can get "the number". What I was looking for was something like a date. Some terrorizing number to drool at while watching monster truck and whatnot. Not into anti-humanitarian causes or anything like that. Just curious about these things because they're stuff so terrible that people have a weird instinct to avoid them. Sometimes even laugh. Not all people of course but the numbers, I mean. The big numbers out there aren't even aware of the smaller numbers. The small numbers don't understand the big ones. That is a problem in itself but really this is more about getting a number for me, than anything else. I'm curious about "when". A particular century will do. Thank you much. If you're not already trying to come up some figures, you're good. Don't worry about this.

All this assumes that we keep current lifestyles. If all humans went vegetarians, lived in small apartments in big cities and did most of their communication via telecommunication systems rather than physically travelling their body we'll be fine. When 3d printing technology goes full swing people will buy and sell IP, but no physical products will be moved.

We could fit a hundred times more humans onto this world, no problem. It's just a matter of willingness to change our lifestyles. On the other hand, we don't have to be willing. It's going to happen whether we like it or not. When the food runs out we have to switch to a vegetarian diet just for the sake of our survival. Vegetarian food requires about 10 times less resources to farm.

Also, we'll survive whatever worst case scenario global warming throws at us. No, it won't be pleasant. But that's not the question. We'll be fine.

 

[Bronzeage]

Population projections are so scary that I can't even figure out how to find them. Maybe you can. I ran across a website that makes me wonder something, and I was just going to see if someone would do some math work for me. On this website the births today clock is moving a LOT faster than the deaths today clock. When you move down to Forest loss this year - CO2 emissions this year - Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year - People who died of hunger today - People with no access to a safe drinking water source... you may start to wonder when it is time to ease up on reproducing.

<snip>
There are a lot of things to factor before you can get "the number". What I was looking for was something like a date. Some terrorizing number to drool at while watching monster truck and whatnot. Not into anti-humanitarian causes or anything like that. Just curious about these things because they're stuff so terrible that people have a weird instinct to avoid them. Sometimes even laugh. Not all people of course but the numbers, I mean. The big numbers out there aren't even aware of the smaller numbers. The small numbers don't understand the big ones. That is a problem in itself but really this is more about getting a number for me, than anything else. I'm curious about "when". A particular century will do. Thank you much. If you're not already trying to come up some figures, you're good. Don't worry about this.

No numbers are needed for this kind of projection or speculation. There is no such number as "too many people", in the form a rational number. If there is any such thing as "too many people", it's a curve which approaches a maximum, but never gets there.

All populations live within an environment regulates its numbers. In the case of humans, we exert a lot of control over our environment, but that actually leaves us more vulnerable to extreme swings in conditions. Our technology allows us to live in places where the human animal has no business being. We can compensate for small changes such as the seasons cause. Our clothes and housing protect us from summer heat and winter cold. We can provide food all year round. What this means in the real world is we live in a world of too many people. We are already extended beyond the natural means of our environment.

When a severe stress occurs, it's first seen in places where the technology is the most rudimentary. A drought in Norway will have vastly different consequences from a drought in Namibia.

Population stresses modulate the population, first by increasing the death rate of the very old and very young. This leaves middle group, where the child bearing population is found. Fertility in human women(and most animals) is dependent upon body fat content. If a woman's body fat ratio drops below a certain level, ovulation stops and the birth rate decreases rapidly.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few centuries. In the history of the planet, the environment has shaped the lifeforms. If it gets colder or hotter, plants and animals either adapt or go extinct. Man is the first animal to have the ability to significantly alter the environment. If the environment becomes less hospitable because of man's actions, will a decrease in humans result in a return to more pleasant living conditions? Would there be a new feedback loop, where the CO2 production as a result of human activity becomes a population stress, which reduces the number of humans, which reduces CO2, which increases human numbers, on ad infinitum?