Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[ruby sparks]

Specific quotes please!.

Some of them were said in this thread, some in the previous similar one ('Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe'). The way I have worded them is correct. You can check through. I was just answering your question since you asked it. I have zero interest in getting into a ding dong with who said them. For all I know, they may have changed theirs views somewhat.

And for good measure the OP was supposedly recommending 'rigid population control'.

If he isn't, what are we even discussing?

Well, both the OP and I have mentioned Family Planning quite a lot, so that would be the sort of population control that has been brought up.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're point is. Ditto post 217. And that was an interesting article you linked to, though again I'm not sure what your reasons were for posting it?

 

[Jokodo]

Some of them were said in this thread, some in the previous similar one ('Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe'). The way I have worded them is correct. You can check through.

I asked for specific quotes. The phrase has a meaning. The meaning is not "people did say it (somewhere), I assure you".

I was just answering your question.

If he isn't, what are we even discussing?

Well, both the OP and I have mentioned Family Planning quite a lot.

Yes, you have. You still need to show us where anyone objected to it as a good thing. People may have objected to it as an efficient measure against climate change, but that's about it -- and you half seem to agree with that assessment yourself.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're point is. Ditto post 217. And that was an interesting article you linked to, though again I'm not sure what your reasons were for posting it?

If you think that population is a viable angle from which to tackle climate change, what are your proposed measures (beyond the universally agreed upon "let's make contraception available to people who want it but currently can't have it")?

 

[ruby sparks]

I asked for specific quotes. The phrase has a meaning. The meaning is not "people did say it (somewhere), I assure you".

You can check back if you want to. I was just answering your question since you asked it. I (and at least one other) disagreed with the views expressed at the time. I have zero interest in getting (back) into a ding dong about or with who said them. For all I know, they may now have modified theirs views somewhat.

If you think that population is a viable angle from which to tackle climate change, what are your proposed measures (beyond the universally agreed upon "let's make contraception available to people who want it but currently can't have it")?

As I said, the main countermeasure (regarding population) that I (and occasionally the OP) have been suggesting is Family Planning. I haven't suggested anything beyond that, as far as I recall. What else would come under 'population control'? Other than stuff I probably wouldn't agree with?

Can I just say that your recent posts are really confusing me. I'm not sure what your main point is or how it relates to what I've been saying in the thread(s).

 

[Jokodo]

I asked for specific quotes. The phrase has a meaning. The meaning is not "people did say it (somewhere), I assure you".

You can check back if you want to. I was just answering your question since you asked it. I (and at least one other) disagreed with the views expressed at the time. I have zero interest in getting (back) into a ding dong about or with who said them. For all I know, they may now have modified theirs views somewhat.

In other words, you're putting words in people's mouths. Words they never said.

Fair enough.

 

[ruby sparks]

You can check back if you want to. I was just answering your question since you asked it. I (and at least one other) disagreed with the views expressed at the time. I have zero interest in getting (back) into a ding dong about or with who said them. For all I know, they may now have modified theirs views somewhat.

In other words, you're putting words in people's mouths. Words they never said.

Fair enough.

No. I'm really not. Check back if you want to. I've explained my reasons for not doing it for you.

Night night.

 

[Jokodo]

In other words, you're putting words in people's mouths. Words they never said.

Fair enough.

No. I'm not. Check back if you want to.

I have. No one said what you're putting in their mouths.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other words, you're putting words in people's mouths. Words they never said.

Fair enough.

No. I'm not. Check back if you want to.

I have. No one said what you're putting in their mouths.

I don't know what to say to that. Perhaps 'must try harder' would be a good motto for you to adopt, generally speaking?

Sorry for being cheeky me old chum, but I don't like being effectively called a lair.

Night night again.

 

[Jokodo]

I have. No one said what you're putting in their mouths.

I don't know what to say to that. Perhaps 'must try harder' would be a good motto for you to adopt, generally speaking?

Sorry for being cheeky me old chum, but I don't like being effectively called a lair.

Night night again.

I'm not, "effectively" or otherwise, calling you a liar. I assume you firmly believe those things have been said. They just haven't, as far as I can tell. And if you don't point us to the specific posts and paragraphs you misread, you don't give us any way to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

[DBT]

Yes, you are. you confuse politicians' wishful thinking with them actually implementing Ceaușescu-like measures..

You know children aren't conceived from talking right?

Yet the baby bonus worked, as intended, the birth rate increased. And there are still many developing nations with high birth rates....and again, an ever increasing rate of consumption driven by increasing incomes and higher standards of living in developing nations.

These are not small problems, or easily overcome.

Given the load we are already placing on ecosystems and use of resources, it paints a picture of a looming disaster.

A disaster that won't be the end of us, but how well we come out of it depends on our current actions. Which, given the current focus on economic growth, is not something that instills confidence in our 'Leaders'

 

[DBT]

Perhaps the best we can do is minimize the damage.... so that when the 'correction' comes, as it surely will, we'll come out of it in better shape than we otherwise would have.

No. You're not getting it. We must do nothing about population because (a) it isn't a factor, (b) it won't solve the problem in time all by itself unless genocide and (c) it is definitely already sorted anyway and doing anything to help that along is irrational. None of which contradict each other, obviously, such as saying that it may be sorting itself out but isn't a factor in the first place. Duh.

You and your dangerous 'including it in a portfolio of countermeasures' cultism. The word overpopulation is either the devil's spawn or you need deconversion therapy, mate. It's either one or the other, like most things, apparently.

Is this addressed to me, or is it a misquote?

 

[repoman]

I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.

(link - click)

That was an interesting read.

Ok, ZPG is racist. Let's shut this thread down.

https://www.splcenter.org/20100630/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-hypocrisy-hate

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater

 

[ruby sparks]

Perhaps the best we can do is minimize the damage.... so that when the 'correction' comes, as it surely will, we'll come out of it in better shape than we otherwise would have.

No. You're not getting it. We must do nothing about population because (a) it isn't a factor, (b) it won't solve the problem in time all by itself unless genocide and (c) it is definitely already sorted anyway and doing anything to help that along is irrational. None of which contradict each other, obviously, such as saying that it may be sorting itself out but isn't a factor in the first place. Duh.

You and your dangerous 'including it in a portfolio of countermeasures' cultism. The word overpopulation is either the devil's spawn or you need deconversion therapy, mate. It's either one or the other, like most things, apparently.

Is this addressed to me, or is it a misquote?

The first.

I was lampooning some other views, not yours. I myself agree with what you said.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, you are. you confuse politicians' wishful thinking with them actually implementing Ceaușescu-like measures..

You know children aren't conceived from talking right?

Yet the baby bonus worked, as intended, the birth rate increased.

By how much? How well was the timing of the increase correlated with the introduction of the measures? How uncontroversial is the causal link? Did women actually have more children, or did they just have them slightly earlier on average (i. e. not waiting until their and their partners' professional situation has consolidated as much as they would have done before)? Due to how those figures are calculated, both show up as an uptick, and it's not always trivial to distinguish between them. If you think it's the former, can you make your reasoning explicit?

And there are still many developing nations with high birth rates....

Yes, there are some. But there are very few indeed where it isn't falling more rapidly than it did in the first world back in the day. And among those, there may not be a single one where modern contraception is widely available, affordable, and using it is not stigmatised. If you know of one, I'll ask for a name and references.

and again, an ever increasing rate of consumption driven by increasing incomes and higher standards of living in developing nations.

These are not small problems, or easily overcome.

Given the load we are already placing on ecosystems and use of resources, it paints a picture of a looming disaster.

A disaster that's not going to be avoided if everyone on the planet stops conceiving babies today. There'd still likely over 6 billion people in the world in 2050. Unless you're claiming that 6 billion is sustainable while 9 is not, with business as usual otherwise. In which case you're a starry-eyed optimist (and also, you'll need to show your math!).

A disaster that won't be the end of us, but how well we come out of it depends on our current actions. Which, given the current focus on economic growth, is not something that instills confidence in our 'Leaders'

If you are serious about limiting population, you should relish the thought of increasing wealth. It's the best recipe known to mankind for lowering birth rates. Sure, increased carbon emissions are a problem. Increased land use (e. g. induced by shifting to a more heavily meat-based diet) is a problem. But wealth as such is part of the solution. You should be asking how to delink one from the other. As long as you're considering prosperity as such (and not its correlates) part of the problem, you aren't bringing us any closer to a solution.

By the way, since you brought up this "doesn't apply to Africa" thing quoted from one of your articles: I took the liberty of creating a quick and dirty plot of TFR vs. GDP (per capita, purchasing power adjusted) of African countries, based on the most recent data from the World Bank. It's kind of ugly and the labels overlap in places, but this is all the work I'm willing to do for you. It should be enough to show that prosperity does indeed lead to lower birth rates in Africa just as it does in the rest of the world*



* The two outliers, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, are oil-rich rent based economies with a high nominal income, but severe poverty among much of the population - their wealth does not reflect any sustainable improvements in the areas of education, infrastructure, economic diversification so we sort of expect them to buck the trend. Experience e. g. from the gulf states, however, shows that even such an economy can eventually turn around when it starts investing (some of) the revenue into education - Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE all have TFRs below replacement today, and Bahrain** and Saudi Arabia are not far behind at 2.1/2.5 respectively - and falling.

** Sources differ on Bahrain, figures quoted range from 1.75 to 2.1. I'm using the higher figure.

 

[ruby sparks]

I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.

(link - click)

That was an interesting read.

Ok, ZPG is racist. Let's shut this thread down.

https://www.splcenter.org/20100630/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-hypocrisy-hate

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater

That's a bit shocking.

What do you mean by 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'?

Do you mean that just because some have dirtied the water surrounding the issue of reducing population growth (ie the baby) we should not throw out the latter? If so, I would tend to agree, with the usual caveat that it should only be one item in a large basket of measures.

Using babies in the analogy was pretty neat.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you are serious about limiting population, you should relish the thought of increasing wealth. It's the best recipe known to mankind for lowering birth rates.

Sure. And it apparently works in both directions, with population growth reduction being a recipe for economic development as well as the other way around, in a sort of virtuous circle.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781831/

 

[DBT]

Is this addressed to me, or is it a misquote?

The first.

I was lampooning some other views, not yours. I myself agree with what you said.

No problem. I wasn't sure.

 

[DBT]

By how much? How well was the timing of the increase correlated with the introduction of the measures? How uncontroversial is the causal link? Did women actually have more children, or did they just have them slightly earlier on average (i. e. not waiting until their and their partners' professional situation has consolidated as much as they would have done before)? Due to how those figures are calculated, both show up as an uptick, and it's not always trivial to distinguish between them. If you think it's the former, can you make your reasoning explicit?

It doesn't really matter if the increase in world population is marginal, it doesn't matter if things pan out as predicted, that population numbers will peak mid century and stabilize.

The problem still remains that we are currently placing an increasing strain on our environment, which will only increase as more and more people raise their living standard, thereby an ever greater percentage of people consuming at ever higher rates.

At a peak population of 10 - 12 billion, mid century, with a majority consuming at current western developed nation is an environmental catastrophe in the making....never mind an increasing population.

Quote;
''The ecological overdraft we are currently leaving behind due to our way of living is pretty sobering according to a new report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which states that by 2030 we will need two Earths if we do not slow down our consumption patterns and take care of our worldwide resources, including tropical forests, rivers, oceans and land.

A health check on over 2,600 species worldwide shows a 30% decline in biodiversity in the last 40 years and echoes the warnings of the last edition in October 2010.

WWF's latest Living Planet report states that "humanity is currently using 50% more resources than the Earth can provide and by 2030 the combined capacity of two planets will not be sufficient to support global demand unless a step change in consumption patterns can be delivered."

10 countries accounted for over 60% of Earth’s total biocapacity in 2008. This includes five of the six BRIICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China (combined 40%). The other five countries are US (9.8%), Canada (4.2%), Australia (2.6%), Argentina (2.4%) and Congo (1.6%).

The report argues that the deterioration in services provided by ecosystems and scarcity of resources not only threatens food and water supplies, but also the way businesses and industry operate, including the planet's ability to deal with carbon emissions.

WWF says it is currently taking one and a half years for the Earth to absorb the CO2 produced each year, leading to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, while natural capital is being consumed far faster than it can be replenished''


WWF may be exaggerating, but the fundamental problem of degradation of ecosystems is real and can only get worse as demand for goods and services increases with rising living standards.

 

[J842P]

To clarify my vote, I voted for "There is likely to be an environmental collapse and drop in world population." not because I don't think that in principle we could sustainably maintain our current economic activity (or even more), but because I utterly lack faith in human institutions to make that happen.


People are fucking stupid, narcissistic, and, more often than not, argue from a position of making themselves feel better rather than any earnest care about the positions they purport to hold.

Don't have kids. We're all fucked. And we more or less deserve it.

 

[Jokodo]

By how much? How well was the timing of the increase correlated with the introduction of the measures? How uncontroversial is the causal link? Did women actually have more children, or did they just have them slightly earlier on average (i. e. not waiting until their and their partners' professional situation has consolidated as much as they would have done before)? Due to how those figures are calculated, both show up as an uptick, and it's not always trivial to distinguish between them. If you think it's the former, can you make your reasoning explicit?

It doesn't really matter if the increase in world population is marginal, it doesn't matter if things pan out as predicted, that population numbers will peak mid century and stabilize.

The problem still remains that we are currently placing an increasing strain on our environment, which will only increase as more and more people raise their living standard, thereby an ever greater percentage of people consuming at ever higher rates.

At a peak population of 10 - 12 billion, mid century, with a majority consuming at current western developed nation is an environmental catastrophe in the making....never mind an increasing population.

Quote;
''The ecological overdraft we are currently leaving behind due to our way of living is pretty sobering according to a new report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which states that by 2030 we will need two Earths if we do not slow down our consumption patterns and take care of our worldwide resources, including tropical forests, rivers, oceans and land.

A health check on over 2,600 species worldwide shows a 30% decline in biodiversity in the last 40 years and echoes the warnings of the last edition in October 2010.

WWF's latest Living Planet report states that "humanity is currently using 50% more resources than the Earth can provide and by 2030 the combined capacity of two planets will not be sufficient to support global demand unless a step change in consumption patterns can be delivered."

10 countries accounted for over 60% of Earth’s total biocapacity in 2008. This includes five of the six BRIICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China (combined 40%). The other five countries are US (9.8%), Canada (4.2%), Australia (2.6%), Argentina (2.4%) and Congo (1.6%).

The report argues that the deterioration in services provided by ecosystems and scarcity of resources not only threatens food and water supplies, but also the way businesses and industry operate, including the planet's ability to deal with carbon emissions.

WWF says it is currently taking one and a half years for the Earth to absorb the CO2 produced each year, leading to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, while natural capital is being consumed far faster than it can be replenished''


WWF may be exaggerating, but the fundamental problem of degradation of ecosystems is real and can only get worse as demand for goods and services increases with rising living standards.

And there I thought you might want to present arguments for your interpretation of the effect of Australia's baby bonus... that's kind of what the quoted section is about, isn't it?

 

[ruby sparks]

Who are those people saying it's "not a factor"? What people have said is that it doesn't offer much a corner to tackle and/or that it's a factor whose contribution is shrinking, not growing.

Well I am not referring to you as regards it supposedly not being a factor, but we have had from another poster that population has never been an underlying cause, that climate change is independent of population and that it is a solved problem. And I am not the only poster who read this, specifically, as 'population is not a problem'.


And we have also had that even the word overpopulation is a red herring, that use of it poisons the well, , that it is a widely popular religious belief to believe it to be the only or main factor. The potential for voluntary population growth reduction to have a positive effect has been understated and even that it is dangerous to promote it. Finally, and most common (I can think of at least 3 posters including you) the straw man has been peddled that anyone here ever suggested that population reduction was the main or only goal (we've had allegations of both) above all others. And for good measure the OP was supposedly recommending 'rigid population control'.

As I said previously, some of these are from the prior, related thread:

Add the fact that population is never likely to exceed 1.5 times it's current value, and you have my point. This is not so much a non-problem, as it is a solved problem. Population growth has almost completely stopped.

All of the problems traditionally ascribed to population in fact have other causes - there is not one single problem in history that was actually caused by population or population density alone - population density can make it harder to resolve problems, or easier to cause them; and can increase the absolute numbers of deaths during a disaster. But there's always an underlying cause that is unrelated to the population number itself.

Our survival is not threatened by resource shortages, nor by population growth. It is threatened by climate change. This is not a resource use nor a population problem, it is a problem of allowing atmospheric CO₂ levels to rise unchecked.

Just to clarify, anthropogenic climate change is a problem whose scope is demonstrably independent of population levels.

discussion of population is a red herring; And we should instead be discussing technologies that minimise environmental impact of humans such that we can sustain ten billion of us indefinitely.

You can achieve the optimum outcome by ignoring it completely.

But instead, the people with the most voice waste their breath discussing overpopulation as though that problem hadn't been solved before most of them were even born.

I found 15 minutes this morning to go back and find those. Maybe I could find more examples.

As for those saying that it doesn't offer much of a corner to tackle and/or that it's a factor whose contribution is shrinking, not growing, I could find those too. Finding posts saying that those citing population are suggesting it's the only or main goal (we've had both assertions) wouldn't be hard either. Ditto the suggestion that discussing overpopulation is akin to a religious belief, poisons the well of discussion and is dangerous.



In fact, perhaps the most interesting and surprising aspect of questioning such things (in broad terms the general pooh-poohing by some of population as a factor and population control a useful countermeasure) on this forum recently has been, for me, the increased suspicion, mostly by reading around the topic, that actually, population growth reduction is these days an underestimated and in some cases ignored issue that has more potential as a countermeasure than even I had thought beforehand.

And if it is quite commonly or often understated and sometimes ignored, why? Because Malthus was wrong? Because some countries have used coercion policies? Because some Right Wing Americans have tried to hijack the issue? Because some estimates (the lower ones) show that population should decline this century? Because there are other things that could be done (as well)? I don't think those are sufficient reasons.

And climate change is not the only problem, since there are many other issues to do with quality of life. Not to mention other species, given that we are arguably in the middle of the largest and fastest mass extinction period in known history.