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

[DrZoidberg]

Briefly, earlier I said that each child born in 'our countries' would contribute many more times the CO2 emissions than a child born in a typical African country. Checking the data, I see that for example comparing USA to Uganda (since it was mentioned) it would be 125 times as much per child, similarly for Madagascar, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger & Mali, over 200 times for Malawi, Rwanda, CAR, and Congo, and over 400 times as much for Somalia, Burundi and Chad.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=false

Hardly relevant, since most of Africa have sorted out their post-colonial messes and are poised for dramatic economic growth over the next 50 years. They're roughly now where India and China were in the 80'ies. We're about to enter a world where the standard of living will be pretty much the same all over the globe.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hardly relevant, since most of Africa have sorted out their post-colonial messes and are poised for dramatic economic growth over the next 50 years. They're roughly now where India and China were in the 80'ies. We're about to enter a world where the standard of living will be pretty much the same all over the globe.

Well, it's good to see you being a tad more optimistic.

Or by 'same standard of living all over the globe' do you mean we'll all, those of us who survive, be huddled in the dark or fighting over dirty water and rat carcasses?

But seriously, the various things you say might be correct (though some specific scientific data or predictions would be useful in each case) but even if they all were true, it wouldn't make the difference irrelevant, because (a) there are differences now (when we could be doing something) and (b) there would still be differences during the next 50 years, which is arguably a crucial phase. Nor is it just about the relative differences. Even now, every child born anywhere will add to the burden to some extent.

What we could say is that the high carbon footprint per capita in developed countries (especially the USA which has by far the highest) is more relevant now, and for the next few decade for instance (even if the difference is reducing). Regarding a levelling out, if that is underdeveloped countries developing, then unless they can develop differently to the 'west' (which is what some are aiming for) then that would mean that as time goes by, the carbon footprint of a child born in a currently underdeveloped country will become more relevant by comparison with currently developed countries. Ditto if there is migration from underdeveloped/developing countries to developed countries. And if the 'west' can in that timeframe also get away from fossil fuels (which of itself has the potential to make the greatest differences of all) and other global measures are successful (in relation to preserving or replanting forests for example, or by increasing non-natural sequestration of CO2), so much the better too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Briefly, earlier I said that each child born in 'our countries' would contribute many more times the CO2 emissions than a child born in a typical African country. Checking the data, I see that for example comparing USA to Uganda (since it was mentioned) it would be 125 times as much per child, similarly for Madagascar, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger & Mali, over 200 times for Malawi, Rwanda, CAR, and Congo, and over 400 times as much for Somalia, Burundi and Chad.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=false

Hardly relevant, since most of Africa have sorted out their post-colonial messes and are poised for dramatic economic growth over the next 50 years. They're roughly now where India and China were in the 80'ies. We're about to enter a world where the standard of living will be pretty much the same all over the globe.

Well, it's good to see you being a tad more optimistic.

Or by 'same standard of living all over the globe' do you mean we'll all be huddled in the dark or fighting over water and rat fillets?

But seriously, the various things you say might be correct (though some specific scientific data or predictions would be useful in each case) but even if they all were true, it wouldn't make the difference irrelevant, because there would still be differences during the next 50 years, which is arguably a crucial phase. Nor is it just about the relative differences. Every child born will add to the burden.

What we could say is that the high carbon footprint per capita in developed countries (especially the USA which is by far the highest) is more relevant now, and for the next few decade for instance (even if the difference is reducing). Regarding a levelling out, if that is underdeveloped countries developing, then unless they can develop differently to the 'west' (which is what some are aiming for) then that would mean that as time goes by, the carbon footprint of a child born in a currently underdeveloped country will become more relevant by comparison with currently developed countries, as time goes by. And if the 'west' can in that timeframe gradually also get away from fossil fuels (which of itself has the potential to make the greatest differences of all) and other global measures are successful (in relation to forests for example), so much the better too.

Economic growth in the developing world over the last 30 years has been dramatic. Most people are living in the conceptual fantasy world of the 70'ies being perpetual. In the 70'ies it was true that the developing world was a lot worse off than the west. But that has changed. The difference between, lets say Italy and Brazil... today isn't that great. The difference between Thailand and the UK, isn't that great. India and Mexico... sort of same.

Just be careful what statistic you are measuring. Since nearly all the top 1% are living in the west and they earn about half of all income in the world, that heavily skews the data. So if you stare at GDP it makes the west look super rich compared to the developing world. But if you look at median incomes... differences aren't that big any longer. Ie what the normal person can buy. If you look at lifestyles of median people across the world the differences aren't that great any longer.

Today people in the west tend to live in a bubble of perceived western excellence, that just isn't true any more.

We're not going to "get away" from fossil fuels. If one group of countries stop using fossil fuels, (let's call them A countries) and another group of countries continue (let's call them B countries), all that's going to happen is that the price of oil will go down, giving comparative economic purchasing power to go up in B countries.

Since fossil fuels are extremely cheap considering the amount of energy they release any country that continues to use them, while other don't, will become completely dominant in the world.

Since we'll never be able to all agree to stop using them.. we're fucked.

 

[Politesse]

Briefly, earlier I said that each child born in 'our countries' would contribute many more times the CO2 emissions than a child born in a typical African country. Checking the data, I see that for example comparing USA to Uganda (since it was mentioned) it would be 125 times as much per child, similarly for Madagascar, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger & Mali, over 200 times for Malawi, Rwanda, CAR, and Congo, and over 400 times as much for Somalia, Burundi and Chad.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?year_high_desc=false

Hardly relevant, since most of Africa have sorted out their post-colonial messes and are poised for dramatic economic growth over the next 50 years. They're roughly now where India and China were in the 80'ies. We're about to enter a world where the standard of living will be pretty much the same all over the globe.

If that happened, the population would plummet quickly, without any need for Draconian eugenics policies. People who expect their children to survive to adulthood have less of them; that isn't speculative, but a simple sociological fact.

 

[fromderinside]

If that happened, the population would plummet quickly, without any need for Draconian eugenics policies. People who expect their children to survive to adulthood have less of them; that isn't speculative, but a simple sociological fact.

People in Europe aren't different from people in Africa beyond the fact that one's personal space is more varied, less constrained by social necessity, permitting one to choose to avoid being encumbered with pregnancy out of necessity. People still choose sex in nearly as high frequency as do those who hve fewer other alternatives for pleasure.

True there is some evidence in places like Japan that intercourse rates are down significantly. that may be mostly because other options have become more attractive than the possibility of some need for pairing.

My objection is simply that people don't consciously make judgements on possibility of child reproductive capacity. It happens as a consequence of other factors coming between children having and doing something else.

All of this os off point about whether humans will exceed carrying capacity. In my studies, although a bit limited, I never encountered a species that,when having the capacity didn't exceed carrying capacity. I believe it's an ecological dictum.

 

[Politesse]

If that happened, the population would plummet quickly, without any need for Draconian eugenics policies. People who expect their children to survive to adulthood have less of them; that isn't speculative, but a simple sociological fact.

People in Europe aren't different from people in Africa beyond the fact that one's personal space is more varied, less constrained by social necessity, permitting one to choose to avoid being encumbered with pregnancy out of necessity. People still choose sex in nearly as high frequency as do those who hve fewer other alternatives for pleasure.

True there is some evidence in places like Japan that intercourse rates are down significantly. that may be mostly because other options have become more attractive than the possibility of some need for pairing.

My objection is simply that people don't consciously make judgements on possibility of child reproductive capacity. It happens as a consequence of other factors coming between children having and doing something else.

All of this os off point about whether humans will exceed carrying capacity. In my studies, although a bit limited, I never encountered a species that,when having the capacity didn't exceed carrying capacity. I believe it's an ecological dictum.

You're a bit behind the times, and also know literally nothing about actual human demography. Europeans have less children per family unit every passing year.

 

[bilby]

If that happened, the population would plummet quickly, without any need for Draconian eugenics policies. People who expect their children to survive to adulthood have less of them; that isn't speculative, but a simple sociological fact.

People in Europe aren't different from people in Africa beyond the fact that one's personal space is more varied, less constrained by social necessity, permitting one to choose to avoid being encumbered with pregnancy out of necessity. People still choose sex in nearly as high frequency as do those who hve fewer other alternatives for pleasure.

True there is some evidence in places like Japan that intercourse rates are down significantly. that may be mostly because other options have become more attractive than the possibility of some need for pairing.

My objection is simply that people don't consciously make judgements on possibility of child reproductive capacity. It happens as a consequence of other factors coming between children having and doing something else.

All of this os off point about whether humans will exceed carrying capacity. In my studies, although a bit limited, I never encountered a species that,when having the capacity didn't exceed carrying capacity. I believe it's an ecological dictum.

You're a bit behind the times, and also know literally nothing about actual human demography. Europeans have less children per family unit every passing year.

Intercourse rates have been decoupled from reproductive rates since the introduction of effective, woman controlled, contraception in the 1960s.

The overpopulation crowd seem to be incapable of seeing this very clear and obvious fact, despite fifty years of supporting data that shows that humans who have a free choice in the matter, on average have fewer children than are necessary to sustain current population levels.

No coercive efforts are needed. Nothing needs to be done that has anything directly to do with population or reproduction at all:

We should provide an education to all children (particularly girls) who currently don't have access to an education.
We should provide healthcare - particularly preventative care such as vaccination and public health initiatives that provide clean water and effective sewerage - to those who do not have it.
We should encourage and enable people who want to earn money to do do so, and we should eliminate as far as possible the obstacles to learning and earning that still exist for the poorest people.

All three of these things should be done whether world population is a hundred billion, ten billion, or ten million - they are population independent acts of moral worth.

That we observe that all of these also tend to reduce (significantly) total fertility rates, and hence population, is a by-product. It need not (and indeed should not) be our focus. Because just as history shows that focus on education, health and wealth is good for people in many ways, so history ALSO shows that focus on population reduction is the source of a lot of really vile evil.

Population should never be highlighted as an important issue, for sound moral reasons. Population reduction is not a worthwhile enough goal as to justify the risks inherent in the widespread belief that population numbers are a problem in need of a solution.

We needed a solution in the mid-20th century. We found one. It's over. Living in the past isn't helping - we need to move on to the unsolved problems, and stop pointlessly banging our heads against the now wide open door of 'overpopulation will be our doom'.

Sadly, humans tend to be about 30-50 years behind the times, all the time - people get agitated about the big issues in their 20s, but don't have the power to do something about it until their 50s, 60s or 70s.

Then they act - even if the problems are no longer there.

 

[steve_bank]

Around 7000 people from central-south america in a caravan headed for our border. We haven't heard much lately on the refugees flowing across EU borders.

Does anyone really think the population should get larger? If you are living on a large island maybe it doesn't sink in. Back in the 70s a philosophy prof I had attended a state department seminar. The gist of it was sooner or later the have nots will try to overwhelm the haves.

We are seeing it beginning on our southern border.

 

[DBT]

Quote;

''As the world population grows toward 10 billion, consumption of water, food and energy is expanding at a rate that cannot be maintained without depleting the planet’s resources. If we fail to address these two issues together, we face a grim future of economic, social and environmental ills, warns a new report prepared by a group of scientists and other experts for the Royal Society.

The report “People and the Planet,” published this week by the London-based society, examines trends in population and consumption and points to some stark realities:


* While population increase has been declining since the mid-1960s, experts project we will still add 2.3 billion people by 2050, much of it in increasingly crowded cities.

* Along with an increasing demand for basic needs, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is striking. For instance, the report says, “a child from the developed world consumes 30-50 times as much water as one from the developing world.” By 2025, the report says, 1.8 billion people could be living in areas where water is a scarce commodity.

* A similar gap holds for food and energy: While average consumption of calories has increased, in 2010 “close to one billion people did not receive enough calories to reach their minimum dietary energy requirements.” Per capita emissions of CO2 “are up to 50 times higher in high income than low income countries, with energy insufficiency a major component of poverty.”

“The world now has a very clear choice,” concluded Sir John Sulston, a fellow of the Royal Society and chairman of the report’s working group. “We can choose to address the twin issues of population and consumption. We can choose to rebalance the use of resources to a more egalitarian pattern of consumption, to reframe our economic values to truly reflect what our consumption means for our planet and to help individuals around the world to make informed and free reproductive choices. Or we can choose to do nothing and to drift into a downward vortex of economic, socio-political and environmental ills, leading to a more unequal and inhospitable future.”



''On a finite planet sustainability is not an option, it’s just a matter of how it is achieved. Will the imbalance be corrected by literally billions of deaths or by fewer births?'' John Guillebaud

 

[skepticalbip]

Quoting someone who makes baseless scare claims does not make those claims true.

For instance, the opening, "''As the world population grows toward 10 billion, consumption of water, food and energy is expanding at a rate that cannot be maintained without depleting the planet’s resources".

Merely reading such an unfounded opening claim should make any thinking person stop at that point and look for someone who knows what they are talking about. 10 billion people can not possibly deplete the planet's water (hell a hundred billion couldn't). The land area needed to produce our food supply has been decreasing while the population has increased (a larger population may or may not mean putting some of the land that has been laid fallow back under cultivation). Energy can only be depleted (at some time in the future) if we refuse to use alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels

 

[DrZoidberg]

We haven't heard much lately on the refugees flowing across EU borders.

Everybody that is going to leave Syria has already done so. That's why the flow of refugees into Europe has dropped to almost nothing. There's still plenty of refugees who would like to get to Europe. But you need money to do so. And they're out of it

 

[bilby]

We haven't heard much lately on the refugees flowing across EU borders.

Everybody that is going to leave Syria has already done so. That's why the flow of refugees into Europe has dropped to almost nothing. There's still plenty of refugees who would like to get to Europe. But you need money to do so. And they're out of it

And not a single one of them decided to leave because their home country was too crowded, or "overpopulated". Not one.

'Too poor'; sure. 'Too dangerous'; certainly. 'Too being attacked with bombs and chemical weapons'; indeed. But none were inspired to abandon the only home they knew because it was 'too crowded'. It's amazing how religionists will twist everything to be about their faith. To a man with a copy of The Population Bomb on his bookshelves, every problem looks like "overpopulation".

 

[DBT]

Quoting someone who makes baseless scare claims does not make those claims true.

For instance, the opening, "''As the world population grows toward 10 billion, consumption of water, food and energy is expanding at a rate that cannot be maintained without depleting the planet’s resources".

Merely reading such an unfounded opening claim should make any thinking person stop at that point and look for someone who knows what they are talking about. 10 billion people can not possibly deplete the planet's water (hell a hundred billion couldn't). The land area needed to produce our food supply has been decreasing while the population has increased (a larger population may or may not mean putting some of the land that has been laid fallow back under cultivation). Energy can only be depleted (at some time in the future) if we refuse to use alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels

The report is based on something. It is based population stats, resource use, growing demand as living standards increase, etc. We are already placing strain on our ecosystems with our current rate of consumption, which isn't going to improve when consumption rates increase due to rising living standards.

Something has to change.

''The Worldwide Fund for Nature calculates that by 2050, humankind will need 100 per cent more of the planet’s total biocapacity (forestry, fisheries, croplands) than there is. What are the prospects of finding another planet for humans to plunder by 2050? On a finite planet sustainability is not an option, it’s just a matter of how it is achieved. Will the imbalance be corrected by literally billions of deaths or by fewer births? How strange, given the evidence, that population growth and contraception remain largely taboo.

Those who consume way beyond their share, the rich over-consumers in every country, must certainly massively reduce their environmental footprints, but the 'number of feet' is also relevant. Often statements like this are assumed to refer to the poor, but our organisation, Population Matters, stresses that affluent parents must also seriously consider having one less child than they may have planned. The guideline is just two for replacement.''

 

[skepticalbip]

Quoting someone who makes baseless scare claims does not make those claims true.

For instance, the opening, "''As the world population grows toward 10 billion, consumption of water, food and energy is expanding at a rate that cannot be maintained without depleting the planet’s resources".

Merely reading such an unfounded opening claim should make any thinking person stop at that point and look for someone who knows what they are talking about. 10 billion people can not possibly deplete the planet's water (hell a hundred billion couldn't). The land area needed to produce our food supply has been decreasing while the population has increased (a larger population may or may not mean putting some of the land that has been laid fallow back under cultivation). Energy can only be depleted (at some time in the future) if we refuse to use alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels

The report is based on something. It is based population stats, resource use, growing demand as living standards increase, etc. We are already placing strain on our ecosystems with our current rate of consumption, which isn't going to improve when consumption rates increase due to rising living standards.
....snip....

It is based on the beliefs of a new religion that holds that anything humans do is destroying the Earth.

Try to support the first claim that 10 billion people will deplete the Earth's water supply.

I would suggest beginning with an estimate of how much water/day each person will use including washing, growing food, drinking, etc.. Next find the total worldwide rainfall/day.

You will find that the total water use by 10 billion humans would not be measurable when placed on the same scale as the outflow of the world's rivers. Also, the water humans use are returned to the water cycle and will eventually be flowing down those rivers to be used again.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nothing needs to be done that has anything directly to do with population or reproduction at all

Of course it doesn't, because....

.. the problems are no longer there.

The problems are no longer there, so nothing needs to be done that has anything directly to do with them.

And obviously, Family Planning doesn't even get a mention.

 

[ruby sparks]

The report is based on something.

It was produced by The Royal Society using current and up to date data and was put together by over 20 experts in the relevant fields from around the world (not just the 'west') including The Director of the International Institute for Population Sciences, a professor of Hydrology and many others holding similarly relevant academic posts in Economics, Demography, Population, Reproductive Biology, Migration, Development Studies, Ecology, Community Health and Geography, among others.

 

[skepticalbip]

The report is based on something.

It was produced by The Royal Society and was put together by over 20 experts in the field, including The Director of the International Institute for Population Sciences, a professor of Hydrology and many others holding similarly relevant posts from around the world, including in Economics, Demography, Population, Reproductive biology, Migration, Development Studies, Ecology, Community Health and Geography, among others.

Appeal to authority arguments only go so far. At some point reality needs to be recognized. I would not be at all surprised if Paul Ehrlich was one of these experts, after all he is one of the world's recognized experts on population studies and conservation. In fact he is the Bing Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology and their predictions are close to Ehrlich's. Ehrlich is best known outside the academic community for always being wrong with his analysis and predictions. The planet did not run out of copper or other necessary metals before 2000. There was no food riots and mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s, etc. Ehrlich assured us that that was our fate.

One problem with experts that should be considered before accepting their expert conclusions is that they are human and are swayed by political beliefs just as other people are.

 

[ruby sparks]

The population (and resource) problem denial here is in some cases starting to resemble other forms of climate change denial, and the citing of genocide and vile consequences is a cousin of invoking Godwin's Law (analogy: there should be no knives as tools, cutlery and other useful implements, because of knife crime).

I am genuinely very, very surprised by some of the views expressed in this thread. And the repeated assertion that those acknowledging population as a factor and a problem (and a part of the solution) are being religious is bordering on farcical.

And no, Paul Ehrlich was not on the panel of that report.

 

[ruby sparks]

And not a single one of them decided to leave because their home country was too crowded, or "overpopulated". Not one.

I doubt you can know if this is true. What we could say is that people have been migrating from exactly those places where population growth has been extremely high over the past couple of decades.

In any case, people will migrate (both internally and internationally) because of problems related to and/or exaccerbated by dramatic population growth, localised or regional, even if not directly or only because of it, because it affects other variables in and aspects of their situation, including available natural resources and employment, and arguably even conflict and violence in some cases.

You can't reasonably decouple the issues from population. They're all interlinked. This should not even need to be said.

The role of population in the problem and as a possible avenue for countermeasures can be overstated, yes, just like anything else can. And it can equally be understated (or sometimes just plain omitted). But, stated reasonably, there's no good reason it should not be factored into our equations, in appropriate, measured proportion, along with other things.

'overpopulation will be our doom'.

No one here is saying that. Anyone who would would obviously be overstating the problem if saying it implies that population is the only or main problem and population growth reduction the only or main solution, and there don't seem to be as many out there in the world or in the relevant disciplines saying it as has been suggested, and if there are some, we can all easily disagree with them, because it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And not a single one of them decided to leave because their home country was too crowded, or "overpopulated". Not one.

It doesn't matter how many economic migrants come to Europe, they'll never budge the number of refugees coming. That's just a fact that many (right-wing nuts) have trouble grasping. The Afghans are refugees, but because of American pride, they've strong-armed the UN into declaring Afghanistan as not in a civil war. But it's still a full-on civil war in that country. A bit like Vietnam war was never a war, it was a "police action".

There's constantly a trickle of African economic migrants coming. That hasn't changed, and they almost never get residency.

The African migrants is actually a good thing. It means that the North and West African economies are finally getting sorted out so they're crossing the demographic gap (large families to small families). And we know from history that it's a limited phenomena. It'll be 30 years of this tops.