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

[Jokodo]

Chicago, Detroit, LA, Seattle. All have national gang activity. Brazil, Philippines. I imagine London and Paris have gang problems no different than we do.

You imagine wrong. And anyway what does this have to do with anything. Are you insinuating gang activity is the direct effect of overpopulation?

MS13 is in Long Island NY and other places you would not think. Drugs. MS13 thrives on displaced and marginalized youth with nothing to do.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not the current or likely future population levels are sustainable?

A trillion people? Human nature what it is gangs and factions would be bigger and stronger than ever.

You say so based on what evidence? And why are we even discussing a scenario with a trillion people?

Unless you want to ignore human history right up to today. Despots and demagogues would rise on a greater scale.

Despots and demagogues were more prevalent when the Earth's population was 700 million, or 70 million, than they are today.

 

[Jokodo]

The population density in Bangladesh is around 1000/km^2 (.4 mi^2). The quality of life is abysmal.[/url]

There are low, middle, and high estimates for growth. No one can say for sure.The UN reports that poverty has been going doen globally with rising food supplies. There is now a decline in food attributed to climate. Population may go down.

The population density of Chad is 13 per square km, or Niger 17. The population density of the Netherlands is 488. Where would you rather live?

Here's one list of the world's poorest countries: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-poorest-countries-in-the-world.html

Take it with a grain of salt, a slightly different methodology will surely come up with a different ranking. For what it's worth, however, with the exception of Burundi, all of these bottom 10 countries have population densities below the global average.

 

[repoman]

A population can be in overshoot before the population actually collapses, right?

So, in 100 years from now will they say we were in overshoot now?

I am loosely using overshoot to substitute for exceeding carrying capacity.

Also, the longer the carrying capacity is exceeded the lower it becomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people here who say there is no problem, if this were not about CURRENT HUMANS (us and the ones we love) this analysis would be easy to show that there is a condition of overshoot now. We have some kind of instinctual blinders on that prevent basic mental functions from working properly.

 

[Jokodo]

A population can be in overshoot before the population actually collapses, right?

So, in 100 years from now will they say we were in overshoot now?

I am loosely using overshoot to substitute for exceeding carrying capacity.

Also, the longer the carrying capacity is exceeded the lower it becomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people here who say there is no problem, if this were not about CURRENT HUMANS (us and the ones we love) this analysis would be easy to show that there is a condition of overshoot now. We have some kind of instinctual blinders on that prevent basic mental functions from working properly.

If it's easy, I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate it with actual numbers and verifiable sources.

 

[bilby]

There's plenty of planet to go around. The world's land area has a similar population density to that of the USA

That doesn't seem to be quite correct. I'm getting 50.7 people per square kilometre, or 55.6 excluding Antarctica.

Still only half the population density of, say, Portugal.

The USA occupies ~5% of the planet's land area, and hosts ~5% of her population. The population density must be roughly similar.

 

[skepticalbip]

A population can be in overshoot before the population actually collapses, right?

So, in 100 years from now will they say we were in overshoot now?

I am loosely using overshoot to substitute for exceeding carrying capacity.

Also, the longer the carrying capacity is exceeded the lower it becomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people here who say there is no problem, if this were not about CURRENT HUMANS (us and the ones we love) this analysis would be easy to show that there is a condition of overshoot now. We have some kind of instinctual blinders on that prevent basic mental functions from working properly.

The problem with those who predict a coming population crisis is that they seem to always discount human innovation and self interest.

Thomas Malthus, the doomscriers of the 1940s like Fairfield Osborn, Paul Ehriich, etc. were all wrong even though they were all intellectuals and used mathematical models. If any of them had a decent understanding of reality and their predictions were correct then world population would have long since collapsed with mass starvation the primary culprit. They did earn a decent living though because the general population apparently enjoy worrying, fretting, and having the shit scared out of them.

Is population a concern? Yes. But not because of the fears proffered by the panic mongers. It is more a geopolitical concern and the human desire for "elbow room".

 

[Jokodo]

There's plenty of planet to go around. The world's land area has a similar population density to that of the USA

That doesn't seem to be quite correct. I'm getting 50.7 people per square kilometre, or 55.6 excluding Antarctica.

Still only half the population density of, say, Portugal.

The USA occupies ~5% of the planet's land area, and hosts ~5% of her population. The population density must be roughly similar.

Wolfram Alpha is telling me that the USA has over 6% of the land area but only 4.3% of the population.

 

[skepticalbip]

The USA occupies ~5% of the planet's land area, and hosts ~5% of her population. The population density must be roughly similar.

Wolfram Alpha is telling me that the USA has over 6% of the land area but only 4.3% of the population.

Sounds about right if ~ is assumed to be +/- 1%

 

[Jokodo]

The USA occupies ~5% of the planet's land area, and hosts ~5% of her population. The population density must be roughly similar.

Wolfram Alpha is telling me that the USA has over 6% of the land area but only 4.3% of the population.

Sounds about right if ~ is assumed to be +/- 1%

That's fine as long as you're individually claiming that the USA has ~5% of the population, or of the land mass - but when you use those approximate figures to derive that it has an average population density, the errors multiply and you end up being off by over 50%.

 

[bilby]

The USA occupies ~5% of the planet's land area, and hosts ~5% of her population. The population density must be roughly similar.

Wolfram Alpha is telling me that the USA has over 6% of the land area but only 4.3% of the population.

What happens when you exclude Alaska?

 

[DBT]

There are people who believe man hasn't been to the moon, or that the Earth is a plane. Pointing that out is of no relevance to this thread.

So, if you want to stay on topic, who of the participants in this thread or the one who spawned it is opposing conservation efforts?

I have not made that claim. I have merely point out that there is quite a range of actions or 'solutions' to be found amongst those who do advocate conservation.

Disagreeing with you that rigid population control is a necessary or effective means does not equal opposing conservation efforts.

Nor have I mentioned 'rigid population control'

I have been pointing to the impossibility of perpetual growth (distinguished from sustainable development) within a finite system. That at some point an ever increasing population and demand for non nonrenewable, including arable land, becomes unsustainable.

 

[barbos]

A population can be in overshoot before the population actually collapses, right?

So, in 100 years from now will they say we were in overshoot now?

I am loosely using overshoot to substitute for exceeding carrying capacity.

Also, the longer the carrying capacity is exceeded the lower it becomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people here who say there is no problem, if this were not about CURRENT HUMANS (us and the ones we love) this analysis would be easy to show that there is a condition of overshoot now. We have some kind of instinctual blinders on that prevent basic mental functions from working properly.

The problem with those who predict a coming population crisis is that they seem to always discount human innovation and self interest.

Thomas Malthus, the doomscriers of the 1940s like Fairfield Osborn, Paul Ehriich, etc. were all wrong even though they were all intellectuals and used mathematical models. If any of them had a decent understanding of reality and their predictions were correct then world population would have long since collapsed with mass starvation the primary culprit. They did earn a decent living though because the general population apparently enjoy worrying, fretting, and having the shit scared out of them.

Is population a concern? Yes. But not because of the fears proffered by the panic mongers. It is more a geopolitical concern and the human desire for "elbow room".

It's too early to say they were wrong. And if you accept global warming projections then you have to admit that they were right.

 

[DBT]

Just because Malthus was way out in terms of timing doesn't mean he was wrong in principle. Innovation, recycling, efficiency, etc, only goes so far.

 

[skepticalbip]

A population can be in overshoot before the population actually collapses, right?

So, in 100 years from now will they say we were in overshoot now?

I am loosely using overshoot to substitute for exceeding carrying capacity.

Also, the longer the carrying capacity is exceeded the lower it becomes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people here who say there is no problem, if this were not about CURRENT HUMANS (us and the ones we love) this analysis would be easy to show that there is a condition of overshoot now. We have some kind of instinctual blinders on that prevent basic mental functions from working properly.

The problem with those who predict a coming population crisis is that they seem to always discount human innovation and self interest.

Thomas Malthus, the doomscriers of the 1940s like Fairfield Osborn, Paul Ehriich, etc. were all wrong even though they were all intellectuals and used mathematical models. If any of them had a decent understanding of reality and their predictions were correct then world population would have long since collapsed with mass starvation the primary culprit. They did earn a decent living though because the general population apparently enjoy worrying, fretting, and having the shit scared out of them.

Is population a concern? Yes. But not because of the fears proffered by the panic mongers. It is more a geopolitical concern and the human desire for "elbow room".

It's too early to say they were wrong. And if you accept global warming projections then you have to admit that they were right.

I take it that you haven't actually read their predictions. Those predictions were timelines derived from their mathematical models.

For instance Paul Ehriich's book, "The Population Bomb", published in 1968 predicted that there would be food riots and mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s. I must have slept through those social upheavals because I don't remember them happening.

None of those panic mongers took into account or even imagined that human fecundity would decrease as world wealth increased. Current population predictions is that the world population will level off without starvation being the cause. Most developed nations now have less than replacement birth rates and developing nations have decreasing birth rates - with greater wealth promoting lower infant mortality rates, people have decreased the number of children they are having,

The population increase in the US is due to immigration, not birth rate of natives. The same for Europe and Russia. Japan's low birth rate, below replacement, is real concern because there is worry that so few young will be overly burdened supporting the elderly in the future. It is third world countries that are currently the primary contributors to world population growth.

 

[DBT]

The fundamentals remain true;

''Our planet is rich in resources such as food, energy and water. These are essential for human development. World consumption of resources has increased rapidly over time. Our ability to access resources has improved due to improving technology. As resources have been more accessible, we are able to exploit them more easily and as a result, we are overusing some resources. Earth has a biological carrying capacity (maPoverty:ximum number of species which can be supported) which depends upon population size, resource availability and demand. As technology improves, this carrying capacity can increase. However, this carrying capacity does have a limit and as population rises and we demandPoverty: more resources, these resources will eventually run out.


The demand for resources is increasing because:
Rising population: global population is increasing, we are currently at just over 7 billion and we're expected to reach 9 billion by 2040. More people require more resources. Also demand for one resource can increase demand for another e.g. more people means more food needs to be grown, which requires more water.

Economic development: people are getting wealthier, especially in EDCs. Wealthier people have more disposable income which affects their consumption of resources. Wealthier people have more money to spend on food and often people buy more than they need. They can also afford cars, fridges, TVs etc which all use energy. Manufacturing these goods and producing the energy they require also uses a lot of water. More people can afford flusing toilets, dishwashers, showers etc, which also increases water use.

The supply of resources isn't increasing fast enough because:

Climate: some countries have low rainfall so water supplies are inadequate. This limits how much food they can grow. Climate change is likely to change rainfall patterns, further affecting crop growth and water availibility.

Geology: some countries have no fossil fuels reserves and may not have a suitable landscape for producing renewable energy e.g. wind or hydropower. Geology can also limit water supply e.g. when rainfall falls onto permeable rock (e.g. sandstone) it flows into the rock and can form underground water stores which are difficult to access.

Conflict: can disrupt transport of resources e.g. by damaging roads

Poverty: some countries can't afford the technology to exploit the natural resources that they have.
Natural hazards: tropical storms, earthquakes and other such events can damage agricultural land and destroy infrastructure such as water pipes.

 

[bilby]

There are people who believe man hasn't been to the moon, or that the Earth is a plane. Pointing that out is of no relevance to this thread.

So, if you want to stay on topic, who of the participants in this thread or the one who spawned it is opposing conservation efforts?

I have not made that claim. I have merely point out that there is quite a range of actions or 'solutions' to be found amongst those who do advocate conservation.

Disagreeing with you that rigid population control is a necessary or effective means does not equal opposing conservation efforts.

Nor have I mentioned 'rigid population control'

I have been pointing to the impossibility of perpetual growth (distinguished from sustainable development) within a finite system. That at some point an ever increasing population and demand for non nonrenewable, including arable land, becomes unsustainable.

To even talk about 'ever increasing population' is to engage in fantasy. If we do nothing at all to change current trends, human population will stop increasing at some point in the near future; The best estimates are that this will occur some time between 2040 and 2065, at a population of between 8.8 and 10 billion. After that point, population will decline slowly, but steadily.

Why even discuss this idea of perpetual population growth? You might as well talk about your concern that as your penis grew from one to six inches between the ages of 8 and 18, it might be three feet long by your eightieth birthday, and you will start tripping on it when you walk. It's simply not something that is going to happen.

 

[Jokodo]

Just because Malthus was way out in terms of timing doesn't mean he was wrong in principle. Innovation, recycling, efficiency, etc, only goes so far.

Yes, he was wrong in principle.

His principle was that population would grow exponentially until such time as it would collapse from a lack of food, yet here we are nearly ten times the population when he wrote his book, with a higher per capita food availability than in his day - and yet the population has stopped growing exponentially.

 

[Politesse]

Asking about economic activity and population in the same question is disingenuous; the vast majority of economic activity, and thus destruction of the planet, occurs on behalf of a tiny wealthy class. They already exceed the "carrying capacity" of their environment. But that has nothing to do with the broader question of whether the human population as a whole is beyond the capacity of the planet to support. Most humans do not consume a lot of resources, or make any sort of meaningful decisions about environmental management.

This year, one of my favorite parts of the planet was opened up to wholesale destruction. A very large area of land, the size of a lot of countries, though because it is in the desert, not a very highly populated area of land. But it didn't need to be. Essentially one man, at the urging of a couple hundred more and the consent of a few tens of thousands, invoked the destruction of the Escalante with a couple of keystrokes on his twitter feed. Utah is one of the most sparsely populated states in the nation, but it turns out you need only a handful of evil, greedy people (with a lot of power) to destroy a planet, not a billion poor and disenfranchised ones.

 

[Jokodo]

It's too early to say they were wrong. And if you accept global warming projections then you have to admit that they were right.

I take it that you haven't actually read their predictions. Those predictions were timelines derived from their mathematical models.

For instance Paul Ehriich's book, "The Population Bomb", published in 1968 predicted that there would be food riots and mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s. I must have slept through those social upheavals because I don't remember them happening.

None of those panic mongers took into account or even imagined that human fecundity would decrease as world wealth increased. Current population predictions is that the world population will level off without starvation being the cause. Most developed nations now have less than replacement birth rates and developing nations have decreasing birth rates - with greater wealth promoting lower infant mortality rates, people have decreased the number of children they are having,

Not just developed nations. A great many third world countries have fertility rates at or below replacement level.

Examples?

Thailand and 1.5 women per children.
Vietnam at 1.95
Malaysia at 1.93
Iran at 1.66
Brazil at 1.75
Costa Rica at 1.8
Cuba at 1.7
Bangladesh at 2.14
Tunisia at 2.14

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

The population increase in the US is due to immigration, not birth rate of natives. The same for Europe and Russia. Japan's low birth rate, below replacement, is real concern because there is worry that so few young will be overly burdened supporting the elderly in the future. It is third world countries that are currently the primary contributors to world population growth.

More than half of the world's population live in countries with TFRs below replacement level.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't think it's any of the above. We're probably not going to grow unchecked.* Education and economic development tend to reduce the birth rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348







*Unless right wing authoritarian disease continues spreading. But the stunted, inhumane nature of right wing ideology would certainly kill us in some irrational, stupid way before the population even had a chance to grow very much.