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

[ruby sparks]

There appears to be disagreement over whether declines in fertility have stalled in Africa or not. In addition to the study cited by DBT which says they have and the graph from Jokodo which shows they haven't, there is this:




https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transition-stalled-sub-saharan-africa/

Population growth predictions are related to, among other things, fertility rates. It's my impression that no one knows what will happen to them, other than that in the long term, they should continue to decline, but at what rate of decline is not so clear.

 

[ruby sparks]

The results — based on a statistical analysis of the most recent population projections from the United Nations — suggest the global population will continue to grow through and beyond 2100. Based on their analysis, the researchers estimate an 80% probability that the world population, now 7.2 billion, will increase to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by 2100.

Yes, I have read similar. As far as I can see, based on the most recent data, there is now a reduced probability that population will level out this century. Much will depend on how fast fertility rates will decline.

Non-coercive Family Planning measures could assist in this, regardless of whether or not fertility rates have or haven't stalled in some countries, because even if 4.6 (average for Africa I believe) is historically low, it is arguably too high now because it is part of the reason that population (numbers not growth) is rapidly increasing in Africa.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

In your opinion, is it or isn't it? Straight answer please, for once. Preferably just yes or no. Just so I'm clear. Just on this question please. No need to bring in 'overpopulation'.

(reposting in case it was missed by bilby).

 

[Jokodo]

Here's some countries where the decline in fertility rates has stalled: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?end=2016&locations=CR-BN-KW-IE-MD

Ireland in the 1960s
Poland in the 1970s
Costa Rica and Brunei Darussalam in the 1980s
Kuwait in the 1990s.

Today, all of them have TFRs below 2.0

Yes, those are hand-picked examples. They suffice to show, though, that panicking is not the appropriate response when some individual country's fertility rate doesn't seem to move much for 5 or 10 years. Sure, analyse the causes: have improvements in (female) education and access to the labour market stalled? Is infant mortality remaining unusually high? Is a large majority of the population stuck in abject poverty? Sure, treat those causes -- all of them are worthy goals in their own right.

But the cultural essentialism that asserts that the sole, or primary, cause is "cultural preferences for larger families" or some such is, essentially (pun intended), the racism of the politically correct. It's also a bad case of philosophical idealism. Karl Marx may have been wrong about many things, but he was right about one thing: Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein ("existence determines consciousness"). Back in the days when large families were a global phenomenon, so were cultural preferences for large families - and families started to get smaller before the preferences shifted!

Saying that Africans won't undergo the demographic transition because they have cultural norms that are incompatible with it is in effect amounts to saying that African cultures are static, unlike those of Iranians, Costa Ricans, Colombians, Thais, and many other groups who have undergone the transition despite whatever the cultural norms may have been 50 years ago, and before them Europeans. From there, it's not a long leap to conclude that Africans aren't cultural beings in the same sense other humans are, that, unlike us, they're congenitally incapable of shedding the biological urge to procreate.

That glee with which this alleged stall of the fertility decline in Africa is sometimes reported smells heavily of saying "told ya those n*****s can't but breed like rabbits, it's in their blood", covered in a thin veneer of political correctness.

It's also factually wrong. One word: Djibouti.

This small country at the Horn of Africa has a total fertility rate somewhere between 2.3 (2017 CIA estimate) and 2.8 (2016 World Bank estimate). Around 60% of its population are ethnic Somali, most of the rest are Afar, a group also found in neighboring regions of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Somalia has a TFR or 5.8 (CIA 2017) to 6.3 (World Bank 2016, which would make it the world's second highest after Niger), Ethiopia and Eritrea have between 4 and 5. If cultural norms, rather than the volatile situation, poverty, and lack of education, where the driver behind a high fertility rate, Djibouti's is less than half what it should be.

 

[bilby]

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.

You appear to be trying to summarise my position in your own words, and are thereby confusing yourself.

Nothing I have said is contradictory. If it contradicts your assumptions about what I should be saying, that's not a problem with my arguments.

In your opinion, is it or isn't it? Straight answer please, for once. Preferably just yes or no. Just so I'm clear. Just on this question please. No need to bring in 'overpopulation'.

(reposting in case it was missed by bilby).

That I don't think the words 'factor' and 'problem' are synonymous makes it impossible for me to answer this question.

My living room contains a fireplace. Fireplaces are a factor in causing deadly house fires. It is not a problem that my living room contains a fireplace; The benefits outweigh the risks. Removing the fireplace from my house will not help to put out currently burning houses, nor will it be a useful way to reduce the future incidence of house fires.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just yes or no answers please.

 

[ruby sparks]

That glee with which this alleged stall of the fertility decline in Africa is sometimes reported smells heavily of saying "told ya those n*****s can't but breed like rabbits, it's in their blood", covered in a thin veneer of political correctness.
.

Maybe, but I don't see anyone in here thinking like that and many people outside of here (including in some linked articles) also highlight that babies born in the developed world will have significantly higher carbon footprints than those in undeveloped ones, sometimes by factors of hundreds. So, while I think your objections about racism and marxism or what have you may be valid worries, I do not consider them a good enough reason to discount Family Planning.

- - - Updated - - -

You appear to be trying to summarise my position in your own words, and are thereby confusing yourself.

Nothing I have said is contradictory. If it contradicts your assumptions about what I should be saying, that's not a problem with my arguments.

In your opinion, is it or isn't it? Straight answer please, for once. Preferably just yes or no. Just so I'm clear. Just on this question please. No need to bring in 'overpopulation'.

(reposting in case it was missed by bilby).

That I don't think the words 'factor' and 'problem' are synonymous makes it impossible for me to answer this question.

My living room contains a fireplace. Fireplaces are a factor in causing deadly house fires. It is not a problem that my living room contains a fireplace; The benefits outweigh the risks. Removing the fireplace from my house will not help to put out currently burning houses, nor will it be a useful way to reduce the future incidence of house fires.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just yes or no answers please.

So it's not a factor that contributes to the problem of climate change. Ok that'll do. It's what I meant.

Imo, that's untenable.

 

[bilby]

Maybe, but I don't see anyone in here thinking like that and many people outside of here (including in some linked articles) also highlight that babies born in the developed world will have significantly higher carbon footprints than those in undeveloped ones, sometimes by factors of hundreds. So, while I think your objections about racism and marxism or what have you may be valid worries, I do not consider them a good enough reason to discount Family Planning.

- - - Updated - - -

You appear to be trying to summarise my position in your own words, and are thereby confusing yourself.

Nothing I have said is contradictory. If it contradicts your assumptions about what I should be saying, that's not a problem with my arguments.


That I don't think the words 'factor' and 'problem' are synonymous makes it impossible for me to answer this question.

My living room contains a fireplace. Fireplaces are a factor in causing deadly house fires. It is not a problem that my living room contains a fireplace; The benefits outweigh the risks. Removing the fireplace from my house will not help to put out currently burning houses, nor will it be a useful way to reduce the future incidence of house fires.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just yes or no answers please.

So it's not a factor that contributes to the problem of climate change. Ok that'll do. It's what I meant.

Imo, that's untenable.

Well opinions are like arseholes.

The evidence is that my position is correct, and that yours is both wrong and dangerous.

I shall continue to give the evidence more weight than I give to your opinions.

 

[ruby sparks]

The evidence is that my position is correct..

What evidence is there that numbers of people are not related to the problems of climate change, instead of it being numbers and what they do?

Earlier you said that there is always another cause. That would seem to be a common sort of informal fallacy, a false dichotomy, because it does not mean that numbers are not also relevant

Please provide evidence for the real human world, not some hypothetical, ideal or analogous one where one of the two can be meaningfully disentangled or one made a non-variable. And bear in mind I haven't cited overpopulation.

 

[bilby]

The evidence is that my position is correct..

What evidence is there that numbers of people are not related to the problems of climate change, instead of it being numbers and what they do?

Earlier you said that there is always another cause. That would seem to be a common sort of informal fallacy, a false dichotomy, because it does not mean that numbers are not also relevant

Please provide evidence for the real human world, not some hypothetical, ideal or analogous one where one of the two can be meaningfully disentangled or one made a non-variable. And bear in mind I haven't cited overpopulation.

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

The ONLY population control measure that I would support is for all the people who are worried about population levels to remove themselves from the population.

All the other measures that have any impact on population do so as a side effect of something that is worthwhile in its own right - education, improved life expectancy and lower child mortality, reproductive freedom, etc; Or that are clearly and unequivocally immoral - forced sterilization, genocide, war, famine, etc.

It is therefore both needless and dangerous to discuss population as a 'problem'.

It is exactly as worthwhile and sensible a discussion to have as were the learned discussions in the 1930s regarding the Jewish Problem. 'Population' is a red flag that says "dangerously inhumane ideas ahead". For every academic toying with the idea of establishing a nice homeland for the Jews in Madagascar, there are a dozen blackshirts who see the learned consideration of the 'problem' as justification for gas chambers.

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

IOW, for the sake of humanity, we need to shut the fuck up about population, and start dealing with the actual problems in the environment. THAT is by FAR the best solution to the 'population problem'.

 

[ruby sparks]

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

Good.

And of course, the latter parts of that and the part in bold is about solutions, not problems.

And it's wrong anyway, because non-coercive Family Planning measures have a proven track record and the potential to make a future contribution, as part of an overall package of measures.

I would readily accept if you said that we should not focus undue attention on population growth reduction measures. I entered this thread and started talking about population solely because I and and least one other saw you as discounting them (and discounting population as a problem).

An approach which emphasised other countermeasures is perfectly acceptable, imo, and I would never have had a problem saying that, and have said it several times. But no one can reasonbanly say that numbers aren't an actual part of the problem.

I'm glad that's cleared up.

 

[bilby]

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

Thankyou. Now I don't have to consider you weapons grade stupid.

Gee, thanks.

But that comment is about solutions, not problems.

The one implies the other. A problem without a viable solution is not a problem, because the optimum outcome can be achieved by doing nothing about it.

And it's wrong, because voluntary Family Planning measures have a proven track record.

Family Planning is a very good thing. It is a way to allow people (particularly women) to have control over their lives. That is sufficient reason to support it. Note that the word 'population' is present nowhere, either explicitly or implied, in this argument in favour of Family Planning.

Why would you bother to mention 'population' in the context of Family Planning? Unless you want to encourage the anti-humanists who will say "If a woman being allowed to choose fewer children is good, then us forcing all women to have fewer children is even better!"

 

[Jokodo]

Maybe, but I don't see anyone in here thinking like that

I don't see anyone deliberately hiding their self-acknowledged racism behind this talk about overpopulation, and I never claimed to.

I do however see an awful amount of post-colonial paternalism: They aren't going to make it unless we do something about it.

I do see exceptionalism (and/or utter ignorance of history): Just because every other culture, in every part of the world, from Europe and North America, to Latin America and the Carribean, to South, East, and Southeast Asia, to the Middle East and North Africa, showed very much the same response to a similar set of conditions doesn't mean anything like that is going to happen in Africa, because somehow, they're Africans and Africans have African Cultural Norms (tm) that'll prevent it (unless we intervene, of course). As if the rest of the world didn't have a varied bunch of pre-existing cultural norms.

I do see victim blaming.

In short, I see people touting ideas that, while not explicitly racist themselves, fall apart once you disect them unless you have unstated racist premises.

I prefer to believe that those people, for the most part, just haven't given their ideas enough thought to see it, that they're still curable.

 

[steve_bank]

Human systems are thermodynamic systems. Our economy is a thermodynamic system in which the three Laws Of Thermodynamics apply.

Mass and energy inputs, work done in tie system, losses/inefficiencies, mass and energy outputs.... all in balance, and entropy.

In the long run the Earth-Sun system runs down. At the end the Sun uses up its fusion elements and becomes a white dwarf. Eventually cooling down.

 

[DBT]

See the purple line heading upwards? The purple line represents population growth in Sub Saharan Africa till the end of the century.

It represents a gradually slowing growth. Not a surging one.

Oh come on!! The line begins at around 1.2 billion, angles upwards at around 30 degrees to a figure of around 4.2 billion.

That is clearly a surge. Or call it a significant increase, the semantics won't change the predicted figures.

You could have said the population is going to surge, and you may have had a point. You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge.

Words have meaning, and reality is, well, real. If you have to stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition to make reality support your narrative, the fault lies squarely with your narrative, not with reality nor with those words.

What I in fact said was; ''Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa'' - which you yourself quoted.....which is nothing like your version ''You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge. '' - Jokodo


'Expected' is not the same as 'going to'

Yes, wording can be important, and clearly you have it wrong.

But then, given the casual nature of these discussions, it is easy to phrase a sentence a bit too casually. In this case it appears to be confirmation bias. You are looking for errors in composition in order to discredit the proposition.

 

[bilby]

Oh come on!! The line begins at around 1.2 billion, angles upwards at around 30 degrees to a figure of around 4.2 billion.

That is clearly a surge. Or call it a significant increase, the semantics won't change the predicted figures.

You could have said the population is going to surge, and you may have had a point. You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge.

Words have meaning, and reality is, well, real. If you have to stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition to make reality support your narrative, the fault lies squarely with your narrative, not with reality nor with those words.

What I in fact said was; ''Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa'' - which you yourself quoted.....which is nothing like your version ''You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge. '' - Jokodo


'Expected' is not the same as 'going to'

Yes, wording can be important, and clearly you have it wrong.

But then, given the casual nature of these discussions, it is easy to phrase a sentence a bit too casually. In this case it appears to be confirmation bias. You are looking for errors in composition in order to discredit the proposition.

The graph would support the claim "Population is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa". It does NOT however support the claim you made, which is that "Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa".

Yes, wording can be important, and clearly you have it wrong - and haven't even grasped which part of it you got wrong.

You may have made a false claim by mistake - after all, given the casual nature of these discussions, it is easy to phrase a sentence a bit too casually. But your claim as made is demonstrably false, and your graph shows that. In this case it appears to be confirmation bias. You are failing to find the errors in composition, because you want to believe the proposition.

 

[Jokodo]

Oh come on!! The line begins at around 1.2 billion, angles upwards at around 30 degrees to a figure of around 4.2 billion.

That is clearly a surge. Or call it a significant increase, the semantics won't change the predicted figures.

You could have said the population is going to surge, and you may have had a point. You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge.

Words have meaning, and reality is, well, real. If you have to stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition to make reality support your narrative, the fault lies squarely with your narrative, not with reality nor with those words.

What I in fact said was; ''Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa'' - which you yourself quoted.....which is nothing like your version ''You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge. '' - Jokodo


'Expected' is not the same as 'going to'

Yes, wording can be important, and clearly you have it wrong.

But then, given the casual nature of these discussions, it is easy to phrase a sentence a bit too casually. In this case it appears to be confirmation bias. You are looking for errors in composition in order to discredit the proposition.

As bilby has explained, I'm not squabbling over the definiteness of the prediction, nor over the word "surge". I italicized the word "growth" and explicitly said that you may have had a point, had you said "the population is going to surge". The problem isn't in "going to" versus "expected to", the problem isn't in in "surge" vs. "significant increase", the problem is that, while population is increasing, population growth is declining, as your own graph shows.

 

[Jokodo]

Human systems are thermodynamic systems. Our economy is a thermodynamic system in which the three Laws Of Thermodynamics apply.

Mass and energy inputs, work done in tie system, losses/inefficiencies, mass and energy outputs.... all in balance, and entropy.

Whatever that is supposed to mean...

In the long run the Earth-Sun system runs down. At the end the Sun uses up its fusion elements and becomes a white dwarf. Eventually cooling down.

Sure.

In order to bring the discussion back on topic: when the human population on Earth reaches 10²⁹*, we'll all be collapsing into a black hole along with the planet under our feet. At that point, we'll all agree that the Earth is overpopulated, that the population has exceeded the planet's carrying capacity. At the current population global population growth rate of 1.09% and given the nature of exponential growth, we should reach that number in about 4060 years.

Several orders of magnitude before that, at a population of about 7.2*10¹⁸, we'll have used up the lithosphere's carbon for our bodies. At the same growth rate, this number should be achievable in about 1900 years.

And if Joseph had put a penny in the bank at a 2% interest rate the day Jesus was born, he'd now have ~2.26 quadrillion in his bank account, about 30 times the global GDP.

The pertinence of any of that to the discussion at hand is, however, negligible.


* 3 solar masses, assuming, for the sake of obtaining a neat round number, an average human mass of 59.653 kg.

 

[DBT]

Oh come on!! The line begins at around 1.2 billion, angles upwards at around 30 degrees to a figure of around 4.2 billion.

That is clearly a surge. Or call it a significant increase, the semantics won't change the predicted figures.

You could have said the population is going to surge, and you may have had a point. You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge.

Words have meaning, and reality is, well, real. If you have to stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition to make reality support your narrative, the fault lies squarely with your narrative, not with reality nor with those words.

What I in fact said was; ''Population growth is expected to surge in developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa'' - which you yourself quoted.....which is nothing like your version ''You did, however, say that population growth is going to surge. '' - Jokodo


'Expected' is not the same as 'going to'

Yes, wording can be important, and clearly you have it wrong.

But then, given the casual nature of these discussions, it is easy to phrase a sentence a bit too casually. In this case it appears to be confirmation bias. You are looking for errors in composition in order to discredit the proposition.

As bilby has explained, I'm not squabbling over the definiteness of the prediction, nor over the word "surge". I italicized the word "growth" and explicitly said that you may have had a point, had you said "the population is going to surge". The problem isn't in "going to" versus "expected to", the problem isn't in in "surge" vs. "significant increase", the problem is that, while population is increasing, population growth is declining, as your own graph shows.

Population growth rate may be declining, marginally - ''Growth Rate. Population in the world is currently (2018) growing at a rate of around 1.09% per year (down from 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016)'' - but the issue is long term sustainability given rising living standards with the related increasing demands on natural resources, in relation to predicted climate change and more challenging conditions. Our current climatic conditions cannot be assumed to continue indefinably.

Plus 1.09% growth rate increases world population by an estimated 83 million people per year'' - which is not a small number of people.

 

[ruby sparks]

The one implies the other. A problem without a viable solution is not a problem, because the optimum outcome can be achieved by doing nothing about it.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

First, a problem without a viable solution is still a problem. Second even if the optimum solution can be achieved while doing nothing about it on one front, it is harder to achieve that optimum solution if you don't do anything about it on that front, because more people add to the problem (this is the relevant consideration) while you're trying to fix it by other means. So fewer people would help, even while other measures are being attempted and emphasised. To say otherwise is to use a false dichotomy.

Family Planning is a very good thing. It is a way to allow people (particularly women) to have control over their lives. That is sufficient reason to support it. Note that the word 'population' is present nowhere, either explicitly or implied, in this argument in favour of Family Planning.

Yes, but only because you personally left it out of the equation. No one is denying there are other reasons and other benefits as well.

Why would you bother to mention 'population' in the context of Family Planning? Unless you want to encourage the anti-humanists who will say "If a woman being allowed to choose fewer children is good, then us forcing all women to have fewer children is even better!"

You would bother to mention it because non-coercive Family Planning has a proven track record and the potential to continue, and brings many benefits, including reduced population growth.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe, but I don't see anyone in here thinking like that

I don't see anyone deliberately hiding their self-acknowledged racism behind this talk about overpopulation, and I never claimed to.

I do however see an awful amount of post-colonial paternalism: They aren't going to make it unless we do something about it.

I do see exceptionalism (and/or utter ignorance of history): Just because every other culture, in every part of the world, from Europe and North America, to Latin America and the Carribean, to South, East, and Southeast Asia, to the Middle East and North Africa, showed very much the same response to a similar set of conditions doesn't mean anything like that is going to happen in Africa, because somehow, they're Africans and Africans have African Cultural Norms (tm) that'll prevent it (unless we intervene, of course). As if the rest of the world didn't have a varied bunch of pre-existing cultural norms.

I do see victim blaming.

In short, I see people touting ideas that, while not explicitly racist themselves, fall apart once you disect them unless you have unstated racist premises.

I prefer to believe that those people, for the most part, just haven't given their ideas enough thought to see it, that they're still curable.

Jokodo, I've responded to this concern many times, including in my last post to you. The ideas do not fall apart without racist premises. I and others (including experts cited) would recommend not having children to westerners, and even go so far as to say (and have said) that it is the single biggest contribution a westerner could make, and the wealthier the westerner the bigger the contribution (because wealthier people generally have bigger carbon footprints). Did you not see the article I posted entitled, "The greatest contribution you can make to fight climate change is the one the government is not telling you about?" It referred to not having children. That's to a relatively affluent mainly white British readership (The Independent Newspaper). Nothing racist, exceptionalist or post-colonial about it.

Furthermore, many undeveloped and developing countries have successfully initiated non-coercive Family Planning measures themselves, independently of the west and without being asked. Again, nothing post-colonial or exceptionalist about that, and in general it could be patronising as well as inaccurate to think that the 'west' is necessarily the instigator. I cited several countries in SE Asia for starters. Many other countries want them and many people (and experts on climate change) in those countries, mainly women, want them too. There is an identified unmet need for family planning in many countries and doing something about it would improve people's lives in many ways and contribute to slowing population increase. It's a potential win-win for most humans, everywhere, including in undeveloped countries, not least because they often bear the brunt of climate change, which is something that has largely been the fault of the developed 'west' and is widely acknowledged as such.

As I have said, I agree there is a risk in terms of underlying intentions in the ways you describe, but it is not true that the problem has to involve these, and often it doesn't and hasn't. You will find explicit and implicit ill intent in most endeavours, perhaps especially in political issues (less so in science) and I am not saying there isn't any in this case. But it is not imo a good enough reason to eschew legitimate and reasonable methods which do not have ill intent and which have the potential to benefit everyone, including in undeveloped countries. How many ideas can we say are win-win? It is great that it's generally a potential win-win. We all live on one planet, as will everyone as yet unborn.