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

[Speakpigeon]

Considering that carrying capacity depends on many factors, population size, rate of consumption, climate conditions, habitat loss, pollution, etc, do you believe that the course we are on is sustainable in the long term, let's say over the next hundred years?

Given the speed at which the politics of the planet has changed over the last one hundred years, and the pace of scientific and technological progress, I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future. What is clear is that the stakes have never been so high and that the problem is deadly serious. There are zillions of good reasons to worry about our future but there are also some potential ways out. Many people still think as if we were still in the sixties, the period of all hubris. But this shouldn't obscure the fact that humanity has started to address the issue. We're definitely running out of time but it's easy to underestimate our capacity for finding new solutions. So, all the options available in the poll are possibilities but there are others. It was easier to predict the short term future of humanity at the time of Cro-Magnon than it is today. Today, we don't have enough data to predict what the next one hundred years will be, even in broad terms. We need to worry, though, because we may face tough choices. But we don't need to put the world population into a funk. Those who really should worry are heads of states and representatives because they have to act, they have to put in place whatever is necessary to find a solution. Everyone is welcome to suggest solutions but we don't need some populist agitation right now. We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Let's hope these theoretical "cool heads" avoid a Final Solution type of nuclear treatment to ensure lebensraum for their own people only.

Any bets on it anyone?

 

[DBT]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Where do we find these things? To whom do we turn?

Sorry, I can't see it happening before a crisis happens to force a change in direction.

Where do we find cool heads and those in positions of power who can set policies and programs for a much needed change in direction.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon given the psychology and mindset of our current ''Business as usual'' World Leaders?

 

[DBT]

A minor error that makes no difference to the central issue of long term sustainability in the face of increasing consumption related to rising living standards and the projected effects of climate change.

Those are indeed issues worth discussing. Whether it's worthwhile discussing it with you, however, is a different question.

It is a minor error alright. It's also a very obvious error. The fact that you so readily accepted and defended it shows your bias.

My unfortunate memory glitch in relation to percentage of growth at the end of the century makes not the slightest difference to the issue I am talking about. It can be zero growth by 2100 and it won't alter environmental degradation now, species driven to the edge of extinction now, ever more congested cites now, business as usual still the rule, all in relation to growing rates of consumption driven by increases in living standard. This is the situation now, never mind another 80 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level
.

Maybe you weren't aware, but that site puts the prefix 'over' in front of 'population' and 'consumption'. That creates dangerous trigger words and will inevitably result in racism, cruelty and genocide.

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Let's hope these theoretical "cool heads" avoid a Final Solution type of nuclear treatment to ensure lebensraum for their own people only.

Any bets on it anyone?

Hey, I specified, "international cooperation", too. You should feel reassured.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Where do we find these things? To whom do we turn?

Sorry, I can't see it happening before a crisis happens to force a change in direction.

Where do we find cool heads and those in positions of power who can set policies and programs for a much needed change in direction.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon given the psychology and mindset of our current ''Business as usual'' World Leaders?

Let's see how it pans out as catastrophes start to pile up on their doorsteps.

Further, I clearly didn't try to suggest everything should be fine in the end. I explicitly said "given the speed at which the politics of the planet has changed over the last one hundred years, and the pace of scientific and technological progress, I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future". I don't think anyone could fault that position. All you can do is just ignore it. Good job!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Where do we find these things? To whom do we turn?

There are many others, but here is just one example:

There's plenty of planet to go around. The world's land area has a similar population density to that of the USA - sure, there are lots of crowded parts, and some huge cities and conurbations, but these are not the norm - they are just the only bits most people see.

View attachment 18045

Biological resources need management and husbandry, but we know how to look after these things - we are not going to run out of food. Local shortages are largely a thing of the past, as transportation is cheap and people are generally less poor.

There has never been a global shortage of any mineral products, and there's no reason why there ever should be.

Wilderness areas need protection against overuse, but mostly that's not a problem - tourists LOVE crowds, and almost all want to go to the same handful of destinations. There's plenty of empty space for the few people who want it. (If you disagree, try driving from Roma to Cloncurry, and then saying with a straight face that there are too many people in Queensland - sure, there are too many in Brisbane, but that's because they almost all want to be there. And the rest stick like glue to the East Coast).

The map above shows human population density. If you like crowds, live in India or China. If you are indifferent to them, live in the Americas. If you hate them, Australia or Siberia are for you.

We have driven plenty of species to extinction; Whether this is a problem depends on your definition of 'problem', and on the particular species we lose.

There is no reason at all to imagine that humans will continue to thrive and to become wealthier (while not becoming much more numerous). It's good to be a human. If you want your kids to have a better chance of seeing a Bengal Tiger or a Rhinoceros than you had of seeing a Dodo or a Thylacine, then some action is needed - but this is not about human survival, or even human comfort. Rare species are a luxury that we would be crazy to squander, but they are not an essential for our existence.

We could do better - but aside from our continuing effect on the atmosphere and climate due to CO₂ emissions, things are going OK. Climate change is not the only problem we face, by a long chalk - but it is the only serious threat to humanity and our civilization.

The rest does indeed come down to what kind of environment we want. But it's a big planet, and there's plenty for everyone.

 

[4321lynx]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Let's hope these theoretical "cool heads" avoid a Final Solution type of nuclear treatment to ensure lebensraum for their own people only.

Any bets on it anyone?

Hey, I specified, "international cooperation", too. You should feel reassured.
EB

Please mark your jokes, like your last sentence, with a Smiley; like this

 

[4321lynx]

There are many others, but here is just one example:

There's plenty of planet to go around. The world's land area has a similar population density to that of the USA - sure, there are lots of crowded parts, and some huge cities and conurbations, but these are not the norm - they are just the only bits most people see.

View attachment 18045

Biological resources need management and husbandry, but we know how to look after these things - we are not going to run out of food. Local shortages are largely a thing of the past, as transportation is cheap and people are generally less poor.

There has never been a global shortage of any mineral products, and there's no reason why there ever should be.

Wilderness areas need protection against overuse, but mostly that's not a problem - tourists LOVE crowds, and almost all want to go to the same handful of destinations. There's plenty of empty space for the few people who want it. (If you disagree, try driving from Roma to Cloncurry, and then saying with a straight face that there are too many people in Queensland - sure, there are too many in Brisbane, but that's because they almost all want to be there. And the rest stick like glue to the East Coast).

The map above shows human population density. If you like crowds, live in India or China. If you are indifferent to them, live in the Americas. If you hate them, Australia or Siberia are for you.

We have driven plenty of species to extinction; Whether this is a problem depends on your definition of 'problem', and on the particular species we lose.

There is no reason at all to imagine that humans will continue to thrive and to become wealthier (while not becoming much more numerous). It's good to be a human. If you want your kids to have a better chance of seeing a Bengal Tiger or a Rhinoceros than you had of seeing a Dodo or a Thylacine, then some action is needed - but this is not about human survival, or even human comfort. Rare species are a luxury that we would be crazy to squander, but they are not an essential for our existence.

We could do better - but aside from our continuing effect on the atmosphere and climate due to CO₂ emissions, things are going OK. Climate change is not the only problem we face, by a long chalk - but it is the only serious threat to humanity and our civilization.

The rest does indeed come down to what kind of environment we want. But it's a big planet, and there's plenty for everyone.

Yes. Look at all the room in the centre of Australia and in the Sahara, Kalahari, Gobi, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Antarctica, Arabia, Northern Canada, and the Arctic, just for starters. And the Chinese are already "concentrating" the Uhighurs to make room for the Han, and there is Afghanistan and Syria and the two Congos and so on...

 

[ruby sparks]

And look at this.



38 million square kilometres of wide open, prime development land.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hey, I specified, "international cooperation", too. You should feel reassured.
EB

Please mark your jokes, like your last sentence, with a Smiley; like this

Nah. Remember the Cuba Missiles Crise in 1962. Cool head Kennedy prevailed over some over-excited idiots in his administration and military. I didn't even notice anything myself at the time except black-and-white television news. We lived then dangerous times and they lasted long enough to test our nerves but nothing really bad happened, even after Kennedy finally was assassinated, perhaps by those who had hoped for a nuclear war with soviet Russia.

So, all we need is that Kennedy comes back from the dead.

Derail

Show

Hey, I can feel my pulse through the tip of one finger but not the others. How is that even possible?

You have deal-maker Trump and the Chinese have really cool head president Xi (please pronounce as "she"). And within ten or twenty years, the question will be whether America will bow to the Chinese and cut on their global warming binge. You may choose your side now.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are many others, but here is just one example:

There's plenty of planet to go around. The world's land area has a similar population density to that of the USA - sure, there are lots of crowded parts, and some huge cities and conurbations, but these are not the norm - they are just the only bits most people see.

View attachment 18045

Biological resources need management and husbandry, but we know how to look after these things - we are not going to run out of food. Local shortages are largely a thing of the past, as transportation is cheap and people are generally less poor.

There has never been a global shortage of any mineral products, and there's no reason why there ever should be.

Wilderness areas need protection against overuse, but mostly that's not a problem - tourists LOVE crowds, and almost all want to go to the same handful of destinations. There's plenty of empty space for the few people who want it. (If you disagree, try driving from Roma to Cloncurry, and then saying with a straight face that there are too many people in Queensland - sure, there are too many in Brisbane, but that's because they almost all want to be there. And the rest stick like glue to the East Coast).

The map above shows human population density. If you like crowds, live in India or China. If you are indifferent to them, live in the Americas. If you hate them, Australia or Siberia are for you.

We have driven plenty of species to extinction; Whether this is a problem depends on your definition of 'problem', and on the particular species we lose.

There is no reason at all to imagine that humans will continue to thrive and to become wealthier (while not becoming much more numerous). It's good to be a human. If you want your kids to have a better chance of seeing a Bengal Tiger or a Rhinoceros than you had of seeing a Dodo or a Thylacine, then some action is needed - but this is not about human survival, or even human comfort. Rare species are a luxury that we would be crazy to squander, but they are not an essential for our existence.

We could do better - but aside from our continuing effect on the atmosphere and climate due to CO₂ emissions, things are going OK. Climate change is not the only problem we face, by a long chalk - but it is the only serious threat to humanity and our civilization.

The rest does indeed come down to what kind of environment we want. But it's a big planet, and there's plenty for everyone.

Yes. Look at all the room in the centre of Australia and in the Sahara, Kalahari, Gobi, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Antarctica, Arabia, Northern Canada, and the Arctic, just for starters. And the Chinese are already "concentrating" the Uhighurs to make room for the Han, and there is Afghanistan and Syria and the two Congos and so on...

I only need to look at civilised places like Denmark, Germany Belgium, Northern Italy and the Netherlands, not to mention the south of England, with way more people per square metre than France, Spain and many countries throughout the world. There's still plenty of room. What there isn't is room for more greenhouse gases and that seems a much more manageable issue than global overpopulation. The main risk in that respect is I think migrations, not in themselves but because of the likely political tensions they will cause and on a scale that will dwarf Trump's fake news. Japan is now testing harvesting robots because its farmers are fast disappearing.
EB

 

[DBT]

We need cool heads, international cooperation and massive investments into whatever means are necessary to find a solution.

Let's just do that.
EB

Where do we find these things? To whom do we turn?

Sorry, I can't see it happening before a crisis happens to force a change in direction.

Where do we find cool heads and those in positions of power who can set policies and programs for a much needed change in direction.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon given the psychology and mindset of our current ''Business as usual'' World Leaders?

Let's see how it pans out as catastrophes start to pile up on their doorsteps.

Further, I clearly didn't try to suggest everything should be fine in the end. I explicitly said "given the speed at which the politics of the planet has changed over the last one hundred years, and the pace of scientific and technological progress, I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future". I don't think anyone could fault that position. All you can do is just ignore it. Good job!
EB

I wasn't ignoring your comment. I made a comment of my own, a comment - more a set of questions - that doesn't necessarily contradict or ignore your comment.

I essentially said, there doesn't appear to be the political will to make radical changes. Which in turn effects the outcome when action becomes imperative.

My saying this is an expression of my position and not a case of me ignoring yours. I agree with your remark '''I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future'' - however, given the current lack of political and economic will to act, I suspect that when that will eventuates it may be too little, too late to avert a major crisis.

 

[DBT]

And look at this.

View attachment 18680

38 million square kilometres of wide open, prime development land.

Yep, when all the deserts of the world are made fertile and filled with people, we can start populating the mountains and the seas, plenty of room, we can fit hundred of billions before turning to the Moon. No problem at all, after all, we are the clever Species.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And look at this.

View attachment 18680

38 million square kilometres of wide open, prime development land.

Yep, when all the deserts of the world are made fertile and filled with people, we can start populating the mountains and the seas, plenty of room, we can fit hundred of billions before turning to the Moon. No problem at all, after all, we are the clever Species.

Think also underground. More room. Think also genetically engineering people, or perhaps just 99% of them, to make them smaller or less needy.
EB

 

[bilby]

'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

Apparently this is a surprise.

FFS

The world is full of people who are making a living from population growth fears.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the UN projections were the very top end of what the data will support.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let's see how it pans out as catastrophes start to pile up on their doorsteps.

Further, I clearly didn't try to suggest everything should be fine in the end. I explicitly said "given the speed at which the politics of the planet has changed over the last one hundred years, and the pace of scientific and technological progress, I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future". I don't think anyone could fault that position. All you can do is just ignore it. Good job!
EB

I wasn't ignoring your comment. I made a comment of my own, a comment - more a set of questions - that doesn't necessarily contradict or ignore your comment.

I essentially said, there doesn't appear to be the political will to make radical changes. Which in turn effects the outcome when action becomes imperative.

My saying this is an expression of my position and not a case of me ignoring yours. I agree with your remark '''I don't think anyone could rationally pick a likely outcome one hundred years into the future'' - however, given the current lack of political and economic will to act, I suspect that when that will eventuates it may be too little, too late to avert a major crisis.

We have started to wake up to the problem some time ago and we have still a long way to go but we're moving. In France, the wake-up call came in 1974 with a guy called René Dumont:

He ran for President in 1974 as the first ecologist candidate, and won 1.32% of the votes. That election opened the way to political ecology (EB: at least in France)

.

Obviously, we don't know what the solution is before we find it. I'm quite optimistic about the capabilities of the human mind. Progress is made possible by individuals, people like Newton, Einstein and Darwin. The rest are basically idiots, bureaucrats, egoists, reactionaries, populists, but if some bright mind find a way out all the idiots will line up behind. That's what they do and that's what makes humanity so successful. In science as well as in all areas of life. That seems to explain at least some of why Hitler could do what he did. Most people feel content just moaning about problems and we can't at any rate all spend our lives all looking at the same one issue so it's how it should be. But this is still just moaning. In a way it's even helpful since it goes in the direction of supporting change, in particular and crucially at the political level. Trump is just one moment. Americans are already moving to make sure Trump will be history in a short while and never to eternally return. And even Trump-like politicians can wake up, although Trump himself may look like the definitive counterexample. Again, let's see how people react when the catastrophes start to pile up on their doorstep. And at any rate, we'll get what we deserve.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

Apparently this is a surprise.

FFS

The world is full of people who are making a living from population growth fears.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the UN projections were the very top end of what the data will support.

I suspect that the real problem will be a decline in numbers. We'll have to find a way to keep people reproducing and crucially come up with practical accommodations to ensure a reasonably smooth transition between a regime of population expansion and the new regime of population stagnation or even decline. Immigration may not keep providing for very long the young workers industrialised nations have long started to lack, not least because many of the countries immigrants are coming from have also started to develop their own economy, as some countries already are doing in Africa itself, at long last. We're going to have to moan about those horrible egoist Africans who no longer want to help us out.
That's l'ironie de l'histoire, the irony of history, as we like to put it in French.

Still, it's about time we did something.
EB

 

[bilby]

'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

Apparently this is a surprise.

FFS

The world is full of people who are making a living from population growth fears.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the UN projections were the very top end of what the data will support.

I suspect that the real problem will be a decline in numbers. We'll have to find a way to keep people reproducing and crucially come up with practical accommodations to ensure a reasonably smooth transition between a regime of population expansion and the new regime of population stagnation or even decline. Immigration may not keep providing for very long the young workers industrialised nations have long started to lack, not least because many of the countries immigrants are coming from have also started to develop their own economy, as some countries already are doing in Africa itself, at long last. We're going to have to moan about those horrible egoist Africans who no longer want to help us out.
That's l'ironie de l'histoire, the irony of history, as we like to put it in French.

Still, it's about time we did something.
EB

C'est vrai.

 

[ruby sparks]

The world is full of people who are making a living from population growth fears.

Irony alert.