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

[steve_bank]

Some seem to willfully ignore the reality today.

People line up to go to USA/Canada and western Europe. It has been reported that Londn is majority immigrant, as I belive is NYC.

Why? Because the cultures they come from are abysmal. The waves of immigration to the USA beginning in late 19th century. The Irish potato gamine. Colonial immigration was a way to get rid of a growing number of young health Brits with nothing to do.

 

[fromderinside]

Unfortunately we didn't learn anything from mistakes around Potato famine. Here we are wasting lives again because we have some prejudice about those who are at risk. Way to go. Much more important to stoke needless racial fears than to do the right thing which will help both them and us. After all, many of us were them recently.

 

[DBT]

If you have to distort reality to make a point, this says a lot about your point.

Nothing is being distorted by me. The graphs and the stats are not mine. I used UN studies and others without changing anything, I merely quoted what the studies say in order to support my assessment of the situation.

No, you were asked to provide reasoning for expecting a surge in growth in "developing nations". Not for a continued, though decelerating growth in a small subset of them.

Ahem, your question was: '''Expected by who? Under what definition of the word "surge"?''

To which I responded by quoting UN studies on population demographics into the future

The predicted growth patterns are based on birth rates, current population numbers in a number of nation states and the likely growth rates of these nations.

These are not my calculations. They are there for anyone to see and read.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Well if you don't want to be accused of putting words in someone else's mouth, here's a trick: Don't put words in someone else's mouth. Sure, it's no gold insurance, you may occasionally still be accused, people do make false accusations. It's just that you have no reason to complain after claiming bilby is making the exact opposite statement of the one you've just quoted.

 

[ruby sparks]

Edited.

Never mind.

 

[Jokodo]

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

What analysis? You only presented a conclusion, allegedly based on (an unidentified subset of) present trends. Using another subset, you could just as easily come to the opposite conclusion. My analogy is perfectly valid: Using another subset of present trends, you could come to the conclusion that that friend of mine will be employing every adult human in the world by the year 2098, and run out of potential employees in 2091, even using your projections for population growth.

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.

None of that has anything to do with the general increase in entropy, which is specifically what you brought up.

Your optimism is part of the problem. It's positively toxic.

What optimism? What good is it worrying about problems of the very distant future (the increase in entropy in the universe), or of the not quite so distance past (the exponential increase of the population, a valid concern 50 years ago) at the expense of real and present ones? Solving a problem, or a crisis if you prefer, requires understanding it.

 

[Jokodo]

If you have to distort reality to make a point, this says a lot about your point.

Nothing is being distorted by me. The graphs and the stats are not mine. I used UN studies and others without changing anything, I merely quoted what the studies say in order to support my assessment of the situation.

No, you were asked to provide reasoning for expecting a surge in growth in "developing nations". Not for a continued, though decelerating growth in a small subset of them.

Ahem, your question was: '''Expected by who? Under what definition of the word "surge"?''

To which I responded by quoting UN studies on population demographics into the future

The predicted growth patterns are based on birth rates, current population numbers in a number of nation states and the likely growth rates of these nations.

These are not my calculations. They are there for anyone to see and read.

And those studies do not support the claim of an "exptected surge in population growth" in "the developing world".

Can you just admit that you quoted a source with loaded and potentially misleading (intentionally or not) language and didn't realise it because it confirms your own biases?

That's nothing to be ashamed of, we all do it from time to time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well if you don't want to be accused of putting words in someone else's mouth, here's a trick: Don't put words in someone else's mouth. Sure, it's no gold insurance, you may occasionally still be accused, people do make false accusations. It's just that you have no reason to complain after claiming bilby is making the exact opposite statement of the one you've just quoted.

I think the best way to resolve this is for me to allow that I may have been wrong and that bilby agrees that population is a relevant factor in the problem.

So while he may have said that the problem is independent of population, he meant (and I accept I may have interpreted it wrong) that while population is at least a part of the problem, the solution is independent of population.

So, to try to summarise a correct interpretation of bilby's views on population, he agrees that current population, as a result of previous growth (and associated increased consumption/emission per capita) is a part of the problems with climate change, and that future growth, in terms of numbers of people, will in reality add to the problem in the short term (even if other measures reduce CO2 emissions, because decoupling from fossil fuels for example is not going to happen overnight) but that because of existing and predicted declines in the rate of population growth, the population part of the problem is, of itself at least, effectively already solved in advance by being self-correcting, so there is no need to actively do anything about it and we should focus only on the other measures.

If that's correct, I'm happier. I would however still disagree. I think the best approach would be to attempt to employ countermeasures on all potential fronts, including voluntary population growth reduction Family Planning for instance, along with all the other available countermeasures. As far as I am aware, this is a common opinion among the relevant bodies and authorities and at this point I am fine with going along with it, but I am fine with an emphasis on measures which would involve decoupling from fossil fuels for example.

 

[bilby]

Well if you don't want to be accused of putting words in someone else's mouth, here's a trick: Don't put words in someone else's mouth. Sure, it's no gold insurance, you may occasionally still be accused, people do make false accusations. It's just that you have no reason to complain after claiming bilby is making the exact opposite statement of the one you've just quoted.

I think the best way to resolve this is for me to allow that I may have been wrong and that bilby agrees that population is a relevant factor in the problem.

So while he may have said that the problem is independent of population, he meant (and I accept I may have interpreted it wrong) that while population is at least a part of the problem, the solution is independent of population.

So, to try to summarise a correct interpretation of bilby's views on population, he agrees that current population, as a result of previous growth (and associated increased consumption/emission per capita) is a part of the problems with climate change, and that future growth, in terms of numbers of people, will in reality add to the problem in the short term (even if other measures reduce CO2 emissions, because decoupling from fossil fuels for example is not going to happen overnight) but that because of existing and predicted declines in the rate of population growth, the population part of the problem is, of itself at least, effectively already solved in advance by being self-correcting, so there is no need to actively do anything about it and we should focus only on the other measures.

If that's correct, I'm happier. I would however still disagree. I think the best approach would be to attempt to employ countermeasures on all potential fronts, including voluntary population growth reduction Family Planning for instance, along with all the other available countermeasures. As far as I am aware, this is a common opinion among the relevant bodies and authorities and at this point I am fine with going along with it, but I am fine with an emphasis on measures which would involve decoupling from fossil fuels for example.

You're wrong.

Population is not the problem. It's not even A problem.

If we provide universal education, continuing improvements in health and life expectancy, and continuing improvements in wealth and opportunity, then all the problems that you ascribe to 'population' will go away without anyone ever having to mention the p word.

If we don't do those things, then we are all fucked, regardless of population levels.

There's not a single issue facing humanity today for which population can reasonably be considered a cause, or for which population reduction would be a solution - and that's good, because there's no practical and humane way to make a significant impact on current population trends.

Population concerns started as a way for people who claim to despise racism to be racist with a clear conscience. "Too many of everyone else, just the right amount of us".

Ehrlich was inspired to realise how population is a problem by crowds in India. He suddenly realised that the world is teeming with smelly foreigners. But being a good lefty, traditional fascism wasn't open to him as a solution.

"Overpopulation" is the lebensraum of a new left-wing movement of determined "I am not a racist, I met a black man once" haters of foreign people.

Those who talk of overpopulation should be as deeply ashamed of themselves as those who support fascism, apartheid, or the KKK.

Asking, in 2018, 'What is to be done about the population problem?' is almost indistinguishable from asking, in 1938, 'What is to be done about the Jewish problem?'.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're wrong.

Population is not the problem. It's not even A problem.

I wish you'd make your mind up. One minute you say that you think it's a factor relevant to climate change, the next you say you think it isn't.

Is it or isn't it? Straight answer please, for once. Preferably just yes or no.

 

[DBT]

Nothing is being distorted by me. The graphs and the stats are not mine. I used UN studies and others without changing anything, I merely quoted what the studies say in order to support my assessment of the situation.



Ahem, your question was: '''Expected by who? Under what definition of the word "surge"?''

To which I responded by quoting UN studies on population demographics into the future

The predicted growth patterns are based on birth rates, current population numbers in a number of nation states and the likely growth rates of these nations.

These are not my calculations. They are there for anyone to see and read.

And those studies do not support the claim of an "exptected surge in population growth" in "the developing world".

Can you just admit that you quoted a source with loaded and potentially misleading (intentionally or not) language and didn't realise it because it confirms your own biases?

That's nothing to be ashamed of, we all do it from time to time.

You are wrong. It is you who is distorting and misrepresenting information for your own purposes.

The quotes and graphs I posted are based on information from several reliable sources;


National Footprint Accounts
'''The calculations in the National Footprint Accounts are based on United Nations or UN affiliated data sets, including those published by the Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, and the UN Statistics Division, as well as the International Energy Agency. Supplementary data sources include studies in peer-reviewed science journals and thematic collections. Of the countries, territories, and regions analyzed in the National Footprint Accounts, 150 had populations over one million and typically have more complete and reliable data sets. For most of those, Global Footprint Network is able to provide time series of both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity.
Methodology''


And the graph clearly shows a steep rise in population in Africa in the coming decades.

It is there for anyone to see. It is not my personal claim;

Note that the source of this graph is the UN population division.


You are welcome to argue that the UN stats and projections are wrong, but please don't keep asserting that I am somehow distorting this material.

 

[fromderinside]

None of that has anything to do with the general increase in entropy, which is specifically what you brought up.

OK. I revise my modifier for entropy to problem specific appropriate entropy. Building cities degrade the land around them pushing farming out further, increasing energy use to get product to people who live in cities is an example of increasing entropic cost. Letting land lie fallow is only useful if conditions remain the same for extended periods of time, otherwise another calculations needs be performed to find matching crops to conditions which then need to be inserted into human diets as effectively as were the previous ones coming from that land. Often humans have to move on and build another city elsewhere because matches cannot be found.

That's two entropy increasing issues with city building alone. I wish you'd just accept that when I speak of entropy I'm speaking of it in the system relative to human habitation. Doing otherwise destroys conversations - yet another entropy loss condition - you see.

 

[Jokodo]

And the graph clearly shows a steep rise in population in Africa in the coming decades.

The also show population growth slowing down, including in Africa. A rise in population in Africa is not the same as a surge in population growth in the developing world. Those are the words I objected to and qualified as loaded and misleading, and as long as you you're quoting data, projections and estimates that contradict them, you're wasting your time and mine.

Note that the source of this graph is the UN population division.

Note that that graph contradicts the claim I objected to?

You are welcome to argue that the UN stats and projections are wrong, but please don't keep asserting that I am somehow distorting this material.

Words matter. What I objected to and called a distortion is not "the population continues to grow, though basically only in Africa". What I objected to is something along the lines of "population growth with surge, in the developing world, in particular Africa". Those do not have the same meaning.

 

[DBT]

Words matter. What I objected to and called a distortion is not "the population continues to grow, though basically only in Africa". What I objected to is something along the lines of "population growth with surge, in the developing world, in particular Africa". Those do not have the same meaning.

Well, that is the issue. Population growth continuing because it is being driven by Africa. That is the point. That is what the stats show and that is what the graph clearly represents.

The driver of overall growth being the surge in Africa.

Nobody has claimed anything more than that. Nothing is being claimed that is not represented in the stats and depicted on the graph.

Of course, it's not the only issue. As pointed out before, rising living standards with its related rise in consumption to that of an average developed nation citizen - even with a stable 7 billion, yet alone 10 billion - can push sustainability into non-sustainability.....considering that we are now pushing many ecosystems to the limit, Amazon basin, Rain-forests, etc.

 

[ruby sparks]

And the graph clearly shows a steep rise in population in Africa in the coming decades.

It's not just Africa.

"The highest population growth rates will continue to be in developing regions, accounting for 97% of the increase to 2030. The worlds developing regions will see 1.2 billion people added, a 20.7% increase; while the population of developed countries will increase a mere 3.3% adding 41 million to the current 1.3 billion people. The regions to see the largest increase in population are India (adding 224.3 million) Nigeria (99.5 million) and China (67.7 million). In contrast, the UK will grow by 5.5 million while Germany will see a decrease of -3.2 million people."

97% of population growth to be in developing world
https://www.consultancy.uk/news/2191/97-percent-of-population-growth-to-be-in-developing-world

 

[DBT]

Of course. Given the difficulties some folks have with just the Africa stats, I didn't want to complicate things.

 

[Jokodo]

Words matter. What I objected to and called a distortion is not "the population continues to grow, though basically only in Africa". What I objected to is something along the lines of "population growth with surge, in the developing world, in particular Africa". Those do not have the same meaning.

Well, that is the issue. Population growth continuing because it is being driven by Africa. That is the point. That is what the stats show and that is what the graph clearly represents.

The driver of overall growth being the surge in Africa.

Nobody has claimed anything more than that. Nothing is being claimed that is not represented in the stats and depicted on the graph.

Of course, it's not the only issue. As pointed out before, rising living standards with its related rise in consumption to that of an average developed nation citizen - even with a stable 7 billion, yet alone 10 billion - can push sustainability into non-sustainability.....considering that we are now pushing many ecosystems to the limit, Amazon basin, Rain-forests, etc.

It's quite simple really. Do you believe that "the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world" has the same meaning as "population growth will surge in the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa"?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", please stop quoting analyses supporting the former as evidence of the latter.

 

[ruby sparks]

Of course. Given the difficulties some folks have with just the Africa stats, I didn't want to complicate things.

Yes. And population growth (the term used in the report you cited) is predicted to be significant even outside Africa (+11% in Brazil for example, +18% in India).

Far from grinding to a halt, population growth is still strong in many developing regions, because of population momentum.

 

[ruby sparks]

"the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, in sub-Saharan Africa, though it has effectively ground to a halt in the rest of the world, including most of the developing world".

What's the 'it' in that sentence?

If it's population growth, then that has not ground to a halt outside developed regions, it's increasing.

"In biology or human geography, population growth is the increase in the number of individuals in a population."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Growth_by_region

Population growth is usually expressed as a percentage increase over a given time period.




It's population growth rates that are declining, and even then they have not ground to a halt and the global rate is still positive (currently +1.1%) and the highest rates are in regions outside the developed world.

 

[ruby sparks]