When will there be too many people ?

[Elixir]

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]

Kudos! That's the one I was originally looking for. Also for:

"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."

Spot on IMHO. I don't think there is a lot more to be said, as far as practical matters related to overpopulation are concerned.

 

[rousseau]

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.

Yep. History can be summed up by a simple phrase:

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

First the need, then the invention. Now that we're aware that unbridled energy extraction is unsustainable, we have to adapt to the problems we've created. If we don't adapt well, we still have to adapt. What happens at that point is what we will have been forced into.

 

[abaddon]

The numbers are relative. One billion pre-moderns couldn't matter much, no matter what they did. 10 billion homo sapiens is maybe do-able, but it depends not just on which technologies they choose to use but how maniacally rapacious they are with whichever technology.

How much is too many? When the one species' numbers affect the numbers of other species. A global extinction event is nothing to sneeze at. "Throw more technology at it" is a crap answer.

Enough space for humans isn't the central point, except among a half-baked animal that has the capacity (a superior capacity to its mere cleverness at technology) to get outside their impulsive self-preoccupation but does nothing to develop that skill, its greatest but rarest talent.

Technology isn't the solution. Sentiments along the lines of "We have the technology we need, if only people were less stupid" rather names the problem. Let's rethink our thinking about who and what we are. We got rid of God, sorta, but still think and behave like the universe is all about us. It's not, and neither is the earth. Lots of stats and charts in the thread, along with lots of "for ourselves" phrases along with them.

 

[rousseau]

The numbers are relative. A lot of nontechnological humans wouldn't matter. One billion pre-moderns would never matter no matter what they did.

How much is too many? When the one species' numbers affect the numbers of other species. A global extinction event is nothing to sneeze at. "Throw more technology at it" is a crap answer.

Enough space for humans isn't the central point, except among a half-baked animal that has the capacity (a superior capacity to its mere cleverness at technology) to get outside their impulsive self-preoccupation but does nothing to develop that skill, its greatest but rarest talent.

Technology isn't the solution. Sentiments along the lines of "We have the technology we need, if only people were less stupid" rather the names the problem. Let's rethink our thinking about who we are. We got rid of God, sorta, but are still maniacally rapacious and think and behave like the universe is all about us. It's not, and neither is the earth.

Nit-picking with this perspective. One billion pre-moderns is impossible. The question isn't the lifestyle of those who exist, it's the technology that's requisite to support the number of people who exist.

In other words, lifestyle has always been driven largely by population density. The agricultural revolution, for instance, occurred in places where hunting/gathering was no longer sustainable. Once plots of land could no longer support that lifestyle, people had to get better at extracting energy per unit of land, and agricultural methods started to be adopted.

As populations have grown since, technologies have had to keep pace with the problems inherent in their growth, a bit like a Malthusian cycle of boom/bust/echo. And so a 'billion pre-moderns' is an impossibility. The only way that a certain number of people can exist is due to the technology that supports them.

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened. The major change was the sheer amount of energy we're now able to extract from the earth per person, to the extent that every industry starts to boom, and technological progress speeds up.

And so in the future (as we're starting to see now) we're going to have to change energy sources to run our world to something more cyclical and sustainable. The question at that point is: once life on earth is sustainable for everyone, what happens then? Does it continue to grow again? If so, what new problems arise at that point? And when does the growth stop?

 

[abaddon]

When there were 1 billion people on earth, at about 1800 I think, that was impossible?

I'm not prescribing a "right" or "certain" number that humans shouldn't go past. The point of that first paragraph is there isn't one. There is such a thing as human overpopulation, but it depends on what they're doing and what effect it has on the rest of the ecosystem, and not on a "certain number".

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened....

Did it "just kind of happen"? There was a rapaciousness in some cultures that was not present in others, which makes me think there's more to it all than just material pressures applying to populations. And more than just material answers.

Also, the anthropocentrism of ignoring or downplaying biodiversity loss concerns me. We keep talking about how technology will solve our problems of worrying about enough "resources" for us humans. That's not a completed analysis.

 

[bilby]

The numbers are relative. One billion pre-moderns couldn't matter much, no matter what they did. 10 billion homo sapiens is maybe do-able, but it depends not just on which technologies they choose to use but how maniacally rapacious they are with whichever technology.

How much is too many? When the one species' numbers affect the numbers of other species. A global extinction event is nothing to sneeze at. "Throw more technology at it" is a crap answer.

Enough space for humans isn't the central point, except among a half-baked animal that has the capacity (a superior capacity to its mere cleverness at technology) to get outside their impulsive self-preoccupation but does nothing to develop that skill, its greatest but rarest talent.

Technology isn't the solution. Sentiments along the lines of "We have the technology we need, if only people were less stupid" rather names the problem. Let's rethink our thinking about who and what we are. We got rid of God, sorta, but still think and behave like the universe is all about us. It's not, and neither is the earth. Lots of stats and charts in the thread, along with lots of "for ourselves" phrases along with them.

Global extinction events happen quite regularly. Life goes on.

We can live without polar bears, just as well as we live without tyrannosaurs.

It sucks for the polar bears.

When Cyanobacteria started making oxygen, they slaughtered almost every other living thing - an entire biosphere. Should they have cared? Why?

It is all about humanity. We need us, and we need a range of other species (some domesticated, some not). But we don't need them all. We will be just fine without variola viruses, Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, and a host of other living things.

Sure, it would be nice to keep them around (in some cases); and we need to be aware of unintended consequences. But lambasting us for taking an anthropocentric perspective is just silly - I would say that getting people to think about humanity is a big enough ask, without worrying too much about the rest of the biosphere. Right now, most people would happily see most of their own species go extinct; so getting them to care about other species - to the point of giving up their comfort and security - is a non-starter.

 

[bilby]

The numbers are relative. A lot of nontechnological humans wouldn't matter. One billion pre-moderns would never matter no matter what they did.

How much is too many? When the one species' numbers affect the numbers of other species. A global extinction event is nothing to sneeze at. "Throw more technology at it" is a crap answer.

Enough space for humans isn't the central point, except among a half-baked animal that has the capacity (a superior capacity to its mere cleverness at technology) to get outside their impulsive self-preoccupation but does nothing to develop that skill, its greatest but rarest talent.

Technology isn't the solution. Sentiments along the lines of "We have the technology we need, if only people were less stupid" rather the names the problem. Let's rethink our thinking about who we are. We got rid of God, sorta, but are still maniacally rapacious and think and behave like the universe is all about us. It's not, and neither is the earth.

Nit-picking with this perspective. One billion pre-moderns is impossible. The question isn't the lifestyle of those who exist, it's the technology that's requisite to support the number of people who exist.

In other words, lifestyle has always been driven largely by population density. The agricultural revolution, for instance, occurred in places where hunting/gathering was no longer sustainable. Once plots of land could no longer support that lifestyle, people had to get better at extracting energy per unit of land, and agricultural methods started to be adopted.

As populations have grown since, technologies have had to keep pace with the problems inherent in their growth, a bit like a Malthusian cycle of boom/bust/echo. And so a 'billion pre-moderns' is an impossibility. The only way that a certain number of people can exist is due to the technology that supports them.

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened. The major change was the sheer amount of energy we're now able to extract from the earth per person, to the extent that every industry starts to boom, and technological progress speeds up.

And so in the future (as we're starting to see now) we're going to have to change energy sources to run our world to something more cyclical and sustainable. The question at that point is: once life on earth is sustainable for everyone, what happens then? Does it continue to grow again? If so, what new problems arise at that point? And when does the growth stop?

I agree with this analysis; and I have an answer for you - the growth stops when we develop reliable, safe, and effective contraception, and make it widely available to anyone who wants it.

So 'In the second half of the twentieth century' (Plus 50-80 years for demographic lag).

 

[bilby]

When there were 1 billion people on earth, at about 1800 I think, that was impossible?

I'm not prescribing a "right" or "certain" number that humans shouldn't go past. The point of that first paragraph is there isn't one. There is such a thing as human overpopulation, but it depends on what they're doing and what effect it has on the rest of the ecosystem, and not on a "certain number".

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened....

Did it "just kind of happen"? There was a rapaciousness in some cultures that was not present in others, which makes me think there's more to it all than just material pressures applying to populations. And more than just material answers.

Also, the anthropocentrism of ignoring or downplaying biodiversity loss concerns me. We keep talking about how technology will solve our problems of worrying about enough "resources" for us humans. That's not a completed analysis.

1800 seems rather late for the description 'pre-modern'.

If you meant 'pre-industrial', you should have said so. 'Pre-modern' to me implies the Iron Age and earlier; at a pinch, Medieval and earlier. The convention amongst archaeologists and historians is that the Medieval segued into the Early Modern somewhere around the 15th or 16th centurys (at least in England).

A billion pre-industrial humans is doable; but only with a lot of very serious agricultural technology - technology the Romans would have envied (and they had some pretty impressive stuff).

 

[rousseau]

When there were 1 billion people on earth, at about 1800 I think, that was impossible?

I'm not prescribing a "right" or "certain" number that humans shouldn't go past. The point of that first paragraph is there isn't one. There is such a thing as human overpopulation, but it depends on what they're doing and what effect it has on the rest of the ecosystem, and not on a "certain number".

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened....

Did it "just kind of happen"? There was a rapaciousness in some cultures that was not present in others, which makes me think there's more to it all than just material pressures applying to populations. And more than just material answers.

Also, the anthropocentrism of ignoring or downplaying biodiversity loss concerns me. We keep talking about how technology will solve our problems of worrying about enough "resources" for us humans. That's not a completed analysis.

I see your point.

IMO, we have to stop looking at the human race as an 'intelligent' species, and just another irrational animal that doesn't have as much control over history as it thinks it does. On the one hand, this is the first step in recognizing that currently we're collectively awful, and that when smart people get into power they have to implement policy that corrects for this fact. On the other hand, from that perspective we realize that history, for the most part, is pre-determined, and that it's ok if things don't turn out perfectly, that's just the way it goes.

 

[rousseau]

Nit-picking with this perspective. One billion pre-moderns is impossible. The question isn't the lifestyle of those who exist, it's the technology that's requisite to support the number of people who exist.

In other words, lifestyle has always been driven largely by population density. The agricultural revolution, for instance, occurred in places where hunting/gathering was no longer sustainable. Once plots of land could no longer support that lifestyle, people had to get better at extracting energy per unit of land, and agricultural methods started to be adopted.

As populations have grown since, technologies have had to keep pace with the problems inherent in their growth, a bit like a Malthusian cycle of boom/bust/echo. And so a 'billion pre-moderns' is an impossibility. The only way that a certain number of people can exist is due to the technology that supports them.

The one kink in this logic is that there's some randomness to it. For instance, our newfound ability to use fossil fuels had an enormous and pervasive impact on society that wasn't a requisite for our continued existence.. it just kind of happened. The major change was the sheer amount of energy we're now able to extract from the earth per person, to the extent that every industry starts to boom, and technological progress speeds up.

And so in the future (as we're starting to see now) we're going to have to change energy sources to run our world to something more cyclical and sustainable. The question at that point is: once life on earth is sustainable for everyone, what happens then? Does it continue to grow again? If so, what new problems arise at that point? And when does the growth stop?

I agree with this analysis; and I have an answer for you - the growth stops when we develop reliable, safe, and effective contraception, and make it widely available to anyone who wants it.

So 'In the second half of the twentieth century' (Plus 50-80 years for demographic lag).

A good aim although I have to wonder. Say theoretically we reach the point of a truly globalized world, income equality, sustainable energy sources, production is completely automated. What then? If people have everything that they're provided for, won't they want to have more children? As opposed to now, where many people of my generation can't afford them.

 

[Elixir]

I agree with this analysis; and I have an answer for you - the growth stops when we develop reliable, safe, and effective contraception, and make it widely available to anyone who wants it.

So 'In the second half of the twentieth century' (Plus 50-80 years for demographic lag).

A good aim although I have to wonder. Say theoretically we reach the point of a truly globalized world, income equality, sustainable energy sources, production is completely automated. What then?

Then we "boldly go where no man has gone before!"

 

[bilby]

I agree with this analysis; and I have an answer for you - the growth stops when we develop reliable, safe, and effective contraception, and make it widely available to anyone who wants it.

So 'In the second half of the twentieth century' (Plus 50-80 years for demographic lag).

A good aim although I have to wonder. Say theoretically we reach the point of a truly globalized world, income equality, sustainable energy sources, production is completely automated. What then? If people have everything that they're provided for, won't they want to have more children? As opposed to now, where many people of my generation can't afford them.

We observe that wealthier people (today, and in the past) choose to have fewer children.

I guess that could change in the future; but I see no reason to expect it.

People who have everything they desire have between zero and three children; on average, a touch less than two per couple. Maybe in future there will be a fashion for large families. But right now, an average of about 1.8 is the norm. Only poor people, many of whom have a reasonable expectation that not all of their children will become adults, have more.

 

[James Brown]

That's not what Rosling said in his TED talk. As I recall, even in developing countries the number of children per woman is approaching 2.

Or am I mis-remembering?

 

[bilby]

That's not what Rosling said in his TED talk. As I recall, even in developing countries the number of children per woman is approaching 2.

Or am I mis-remembering?

You are correct - but that's not a contradiction of what I said.

The big driver of large family sizes appears to be overcompensating for high infant mortality; but of course, infant mortality tends to be higher in poorer nations.

There are many nations where infant mortality has declined, and so have birth rates, despite GDP per capita not increasing very much.

It remains true that getting rich doesn't tend to lead to choosing to have a large family. Few people have seven kids rather than three, simply because they can afford to support them all in comfort.

 

[James Brown]

"Only rich people can afford to not have children," as the saying goes. I totally agree with Rosling's claim that the best way to eliminate poverty--educate the women.

One thing I don't understand...I totally understand that high infant mortality leads to large families. What I don't fully understand is how those two factors combined lead to runaway population growth. If Manuel and Carlita have seven children, and only two of them live long enough to become parents, then how is that different in the long run from Magnus and Alisa having just two children, both of whom live long enough to become parents?

 

[DBT]

Personally, regardless of the question of carrying capacity, resource usage, environmental pressure, etc, I consider the planet to be overcrowded with people. There are too many people. I'd say between one to two billion tops to allow for large areas of unused land, cities and towns that are surrounded by vast tracts of forest and bushland. As far as I'm concerned, the planet is grossly overpopulated.

 

[bilby]

"Only rich people can afford to not have children," as the saying goes. I totally agree with Rosling's claim that the best way to eliminate poverty--educate the women.

One thing I don't understand...I totally understand that high infant mortality leads to large families. What I don't fully understand is how those two factors combined lead to runaway population growth. If Manuel and Carlita have seven children, and only two of them live long enough to become parents, then how is that different in the long run from Magnus and Alisa having just two children, both of whom live long enough to become parents?

Because more than two in seven survive. A 50% infant mortality would be horrific by even the worst standards - so when people have seven kids, the average number who reach adulthood is 3, 4 or even 5.

 

[beero1000]

"Only rich people can afford to not have children," as the saying goes. I totally agree with Rosling's claim that the best way to eliminate poverty--educate the women.

One thing I don't understand...I totally understand that high infant mortality leads to large families. What I don't fully understand is how those two factors combined lead to runaway population growth. If Manuel and Carlita have seven children, and only two of them live long enough to become parents, then how is that different in the long run from Magnus and Alisa having just two children, both of whom live long enough to become parents?

Overcompensation, variance and a right-skewed distribution.

 

[ryan]

As long as we know that an entire universe can probabilistically come from nothing, it could ultimately mean that matter is created faster than even a doubling of the human population every 10 years.

 

[Elixir]

Personally, regardless of the question of carrying capacity, resource usage, environmental pressure, etc, I consider the planet to be overcrowded with people. There are too many people. I'd say between one to two billion tops to allow for large areas of unused land, cities and towns that are surrounded by vast tracts of forest and bushland. As far as I'm concerned, the planet is grossly overpopulated.

^^^
THAT!

Of course it may be that everyone thinks the ideal level of global population is whatever it was when they were born. (About 2.55b when I was born... still sounds good to me.)
If that's the case, it won't be long before a world with "only" 8 billion people will sound idyllic to most.