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

[Jokodo]

Irrespective of the merits of what what you bring up here, none of that subtracts from the fact that the claim "population growth is surging in the developing world" is plainly misleading.

Well it's still growing quite rapidly. Whether 'surge' is or isn't the right word I don't know. It's not an entirely inappropriate word imo, if we defined it as 'significantly increasing'. There are degrees though, yes, of course. If we defined it as 'suddenly increasing' then no, it wouldn't be the right word.

Population growth -- and that's what the claim was about -- isn't increasing, "significantly" or otherwise. In relative terms, the annual growth rate peaked around the year 1970 at 2.1% and has nearly halved since. In absolute terms, that is in the year-to-year difference of the number of people on the planet, peaked in the year 1988, at an estimated year to year increase of 92.6 million, and is down 10 million per year since.

 

[ruby sparks]

I personally would be fine with not using the word surge, especially in relation to population growth, which could incorrectly imply that the rate was increasing, not just the numbers. Merely in relation to population it might be a bit more acceptable, but even then overall I'd be happier with not saying surge and just saying population is continuing to grow and that the increase in numbers will be significant, for a variety of reasons, including the effect of previously higher growth rates.

 

[Jokodo]

I personally would be fine with not using the word surge, especially in relation to population growth, which could incorrectly imply that the rate was increasing, not just the numbers.

Did you even read my last post? In relation to population growth, the numbers aren't increasing either. They peaked back in effing 1988.

Do you realise what year it is?

 

[ruby sparks]

In relation to population growth, the numbers aren't increasing either. They peaked back in effing 1988.

Yes I totally get that, which is why I said what I said.

What are 'numbers of population growth'? Who uses such a phrase?

I meant numbers of people.

 

[Jokodo]

In relation to population growth, the numbers aren't increasing either. They peaked back in effing 1988.

Yes I totally get that, which is why I said what I said.

No, you didn't say that. You said that in relation to population growth, the numbers are increasing.

 

[ruby sparks]

In relation to population growth, the numbers aren't increasing either. They peaked back in effing 1988.

Yes I totally get that, which is why I said what I said.

No, you didn't say that. You said that in relation to population growth, the numbers are increasing.

Nope. I didn't. Please don't misquote me.

Look, if you read it that way, maybe it was just lost in transmission. Maybe I could have explained it better. But I meant numbers of people. Who uses the phrase 'numbers of population growth'? It would be more common to refer to rates of growth, which is why I said rates are not increasing, only numbers.

In short, population growth is not increasing, only numbers of people, and I might avoid the word surge even for the latter.

 

[Jokodo]

No, you didn't say that. You said that in relation to population growth, the numbers are increasing.

Nope. I didn't. Please don't misquote me.

Look, if you read it that way, maybe it was just lost in transmission. Maybe I could have explained it better. But I meant numbers of people. Who uses the phrase 'numbers of population growth'? It would be more common to refer to rates of growth, which is why I said rates are not increasing, only numbers.

In short, population growth is not increasing, only numbers of people, and I might avoid the word surge even for the latter.

Oh, you can perfectly reference population growth in terms of the absolute increase per year. You can make charts of it. I linked one.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. Not sure what your point is though, now that I've clarified I meant numbers of people.

Also, 'absolute increase per year' is a rate. Absolute increase would be a number.

Anyhows, I've clarified. When I said numbers I meant numbers of people, and I've said that surge is arguably the wrong word even for that, so I'm not sure why we're continuing with this particular point.

 

[Jokodo]

Ok. Not sure what your point is though, now that I've clarified I meant numbers of people.

Also, 'absolute increase per year' is a rate. Absolute increase would be a number.

It is a rate -- but not the one usually referred to as the population growth rate. When people use that term, they almost universally mean the percentage growth rate.

Anyhows, I've clarified. When I said numbers I meant numbers of people, and I've said that surge is arguably the wrong word even for that, so I'm not sure why we're continuing with this particular point.

My point that one should not be abusing terminology when attempting to part-take in a fact-based discussion. Saying that "population growth is surging" is, under the most benevolent of interpretations, an abuse of terminology - one could just as easily interpret it as a lie, or a case of basing one's analysis of reality on 50 year old data. When I pointed out DBT's abuse of terminology, you jumped to his defense. This diversion is entirely on you.

 

[fromderinside]

It seems that overall population will continue to increase indefinitely given present trends, notwithstanding subzero growth among some populations. So that's one.

My second contention is that humans will exceed carrying capacity because humans are slowly degrading carrying capacity.

My third contention is that general conditions over time are changing in the direction of less productive capacity IAC with entropy.

So, given all that humans will exceed carrying capacity and crash in the not too distant future.

 

[ruby sparks]

When I pointed out DBT's abuse of terminology, you jumped to his defense.

Nope. Not once did I agree that population growth surge was the appropriate phrase.

DBT and I agree on many things, but not everything.

This diversion is entirely on you.

Lol. Ok. Mea culpa then.

 

[Jokodo]

It seems that overall population will continue to increase indefinitely given present trends, notwithstanding subzero growth among some populations. So that's one.

''Given current trends", that friend of mine who opened a shop 3 years ago and added a full-time employee in the spring (a doubling of the workforce every 2.5 years) will be requiring twelve billion workers just around the end of the century, so at least unemployment isn't going to be a problem.

Either that, or projecting current trends without looking at the underlying drivers is just a bad idea, in accordance with the motto "bullshit in, bullshit out". You pick.

What's worse, you're cherrypicking which trends you want to look at. One current trend is for the percentage population growth rate to decline - from 2.2 in the sixties to 1.15% today. If that's the trend you're projecting, we'll reach zero growth long before the end of the century. Another current trend is for the population to get older, and thus age-related deaths to increase massively in proportion to the population; an older population also means a smaller percentage of women in child-bearing age, so the birth rate is bound to decline even if fertility rates stayed what they are. If you use the crude population growth rate (being as it is a composite of multiple drivers that must, and can, be directly assessed), you might as well project the freezing over of the Carribean by mid-November based on recent weather.

My second contention is that humans will exceed carrying capacity because humans are slowly degrading carrying capacity.

That is a potential concern. For most of the 20th and 21st century, however, this is not what we've observed. E. g. in the area of food production, yields per hectare have on the large been growing faster than the population.

My third contention is that general conditions over time are changing in the direction of less productive capacity IAC with entropy.

Are we talking in 100s, or 100s of millions of years here?

So, given all that humans will exceed carrying capacity and crash in the not too distant future.

Significantly less productive conditions due to entropy in the not too distant future? I want some of what you've been smoking!

 

[Jokodo]

When I pointed out DBT's abuse of terminology, you jumped to his defense. This diversion is entirely on you.

Nope. Not once did I agree that population growth surge was the appropriate phrase.

DBT and I agree on many things, but not everything.

I also think you should perhaps focus on the wider issues here rather than going about calling people liars for perhaps not using the best terminology now and again. We can agree that the terminology is accurate and move on.

I did not call him a liar. I pointed out that the source he was quoting uses highly loaded (and possibly, though not necessarily, intentionally misleading) language. The fact that he didn't even notice this goes a long way to show that he is incapable of discussing this issue in a rational manner, but it doesn't make a liar.

 

[ruby sparks]

I did not call him a liar. I pointed out that the source he was quoting uses highly loaded (and possibly, though not necessarily, intentionally misleading) language. The fact that he didn't even notice this goes a long way to show that he is incapable of discussing this issue in a rational manner, but it doesn't make a liar.

You have an unfortunate habit of at least implying that others are lying, imo, with phrases such as 'DBT's abuse of terminology' and 'just as easily interpret it as a lie' and accusations of someone putting words in someone else's mouth.

 

[Politesse]

To a scientist, a "projection" is a hypothesis in need of testing, not a conclusion.

What does history tell you about the predictions the overpopulation model has led to, and how they balanced out against empirical observation over time?

 

[ruby sparks]

What does history tell you about the predictions the overpopulation model has led to, and how they balanced out against empirical observation over time?

Fine. But I think that if you want to challenge current predictions, you need to do a LOT more than just say that some got predictions wrong in the past.

Similarly, you can't make the case that countermeasures are necessarily wrong just because the wrong or bad ones were employed in some cases. Non-coercive Family Planning measures have a proven track record and hold the promise of continuing to do so. I know you worry about misuse and abuse, and I think that's entirely valid, but I don't think it's a good enough reason for others to discount all population growth control measures, now or going forward.

 

[Politesse]

What does history tell you about the predictions the overpopulation model has led to, and how they balanced out against empirical observation over time?

Fine. But I think that if you want to challenge current predictions, you need to do a LOT more than just say that some got predictions wrong in the past.

Similarly, you can't make the case that countermeasures are necessarily wrong just because the wrong or bad ones were employed in some cases. Non-coercive Family Planning measures have a proven track record and hold the promise of continuing to do so. I know you worry about misuse and abuse, and I think that's entirely valid, but I don't think it's a good enough reason for others to discount all population growth control measures, now or going forward.

Again, voluntary solutions I do not object to. Indeed, I think they are the natural course of things, which is why the whole hysteria has never caught on with me.

 

[ruby sparks]

Indeed, I think they are the natural course of things....

Not really poli. Often, they've been interventions. And I read that they have been somewhat neglected in recent years, especially in Africa. And I don't think leaving things to their natural course is what we need to be doing, on many fronts.

...which is why the whole hysteria has never caught on with me.

I don't understand why the population issue has to be characterised as 'the whole hysteria' or 'population madness', etc, let alone as a solved problem about which nothing should be done.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can only say again that I am genuinely greatly surprised and a little bit shocked by several of the broad views and responses aired in this discussion, perhaps especially the apparent complaceny about population.

I agree that it's possible to overstate certain issues, and perhaps too much time has been spent here in this thread on population, particularly in relation to growth control as a countermeasure, but in my case and I think the OP's case, that's had a lot to do with responding to it being understated or discounted, as both a problem and something that could at least be part of the solutions.

I could say something similar about resources, and possibly to some extent about carrying capacity in general, although it seems less clear whether we've actually exceeded that or if not how close we are to doing that, or, if we're not actually close, what the long term future effects will be of the increased burdens we are imposing will be.

I remain totally happy to move away from population issues if anyone else wants to focus instead on some other aspect of the broader issue, am fine with saying that reducing CO2 emissions in other ways is a greater opportunity vis-a-vis countermeasures, and have already made suggestions on moving to this tack. As to carrying capacity specifically, maybe we could get back to that?

 

[fromderinside]

''Given current trends", that friend of mine who opened a shop 3 years ago and added a full-time employee in the spring (a doubling of the workforce every 2.5 years) will be requiring twelve billion workers just around the end of the century, so at least unemployment isn't going to be a problem

Either that, or projecting current trends without looking at the underlying drivers is just a bad idea, in accordance with the motto "bullshit in, bullshit out". You pick.

My analysis is based on overall global trends taking into account current negative and positive trends. Your criticism depends on a strawman.

That is a potential concern. For most of the 20th and 21st century, however, this is not what we've observed. E. g. in the area of food production, yields per hectare have on the large been growing faster than the population.

I didn't discount the green revolution. Nor did I discount effects due to greed. I mentioned loss of productivity in many areas in an earlier post from such as alkalinization of soil, of redirecting water supplies from one region to another, of loss from sea level changes due to man induced climate change, and to overall changes in temperature and moisture cycles in many places in the world.

My third contention is that general conditions over time are changing in the direction of less productive capacity IAC with entropy.

Are we talking in 100s, or 100s of millions of years here?

I'm talking about how man tends to degrade environment for the purposes of habitability and 'progress'. These are really quite near term entropic drivers

So, given all that humans will exceed carrying capacity and crash in the not too distant future.

Significantly less productive conditions due to entropy in the not too distant future? I want some of what you've been smoking!

Sure. Check out loss of land due to habitation and commerce in rapidly advancing and very advanced nations. Tastes great smells awful though.

Your optimism is part of the problem. It's positively toxic. When I was in school scientists were carving up islands to measure effects of habitation on ecology. How many islands does it take working at the rate of humans at 7 billion take to carve up enough to convince you.