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

[Jokodo]

... in which you demonstrate, once again, that you didn't read my post..

No. I read it. It's just that it in no way warrants saying that population makes not the slightest difference to the issue.

In the same sense in which the difference between a 0.9% and a 0.09% makes not the slightest difference - which was what DBT claimed.

 

[ruby sparks]

... in which you demonstrate, once again, that you didn't read my post..

No. I read it. It's just that it in no way warrants saying that population makes not the slightest difference to the issue.

In the same sense in which the difference between a 0.9% and a 0.09% makes not the slightest difference - which was what DBT claimed.

What, apart from reprising one of your recent internet gotchas, has that got to do with the question of whether population makes a difference?

No intelligent person in their right mind can accurately say either that population is not a problem or that it makes not the slightest difference. If you believe either of those things then you're being idiotic. It's that simple.

 

[4321lynx]

Churchill was a man of his time, his judgment coloured, clouded, distorted, by his upbringing in the English uppermost caste.

Yes, it's easy for today's braggers cosy in our comfortable societies to smart about how dreadful this or that ancient person had been, without ever acknowledging that everything at the time was dreadful. People at the time never had a chance to learn about our cosy system of values. Churchill was indeed a man of his time but he did do a very good job in the circumstances, one that very few people could have done at all. Just try to imagine yourself in his shoes, facing the Third Reich.

Still, he was also the embodiment of the English upper-class culture and criticising these people is just right because we're not talking at them, that would be unfair but also impossible, we're talking to each other, and criticising the British Public School culture is just an effective way of saying to each other "never again", which is a really minimal expenditure of our personal resources but can't do much harm. Keeping to a rational standard of discourse is necessary but most of what we say isn't motivated by rationality. Our motivation is very nearly always elsewhere, essentially in private emotions we usually don't want to admit to. Really understanding other people would require an ability to interpret their words we usually don't have. So a rational message is what we communicate but only in spite of ourselves. So, critics of Churchill, most of them, are really talking about something else, us.

And people like Voltaire were just very fortunate to live ahead of their time, although it can be a dangerous way of living your life.

And don't forget, God was an Englishman.

Yes, exactly. Gott mit uns. God is capable of being with all sides at the same time precisely because He is all-powerful. This should be proof enough.
EB

And there always were men who said, and continue to say:

The Return

PEACE is declared, and I return
To 'Ackneystadt, but not the same;
Things 'ave transpired which made me learn
The size and meanin' of the game.
I did no more than others did,
I don't know where the change began;
I started as a average kid,
I finished as a thinkin' man.

If England was what England seems
An' not the England of our dreams,
But only putty, brass, an' paint,
'Ow quick we'd drop 'er! But she ain't!

etc...

 

[DBT]

... in which you demonstrate, once again, that you didn't read my post..

No. I read it. It's just that it in no way warrants saying that population makes not the slightest difference to the issue.

In the same sense in which the difference between a 0.9% and a 0.09% makes not the slightest difference - which was what DBT claimed.

I said that because, due to the scale of the problem of rising consumption, even if our current population happened to stabilize before mid century (which won't happen), the issue of rising consumption and ecological degradation will have to be addressed long before the end of the century if a major disaster is to be averted. So whatever the growth rate for 2100 is bandied about, it seems to be a moot point.

 

[DBT]

You could have simply phrased your objection as "[population] makes not the slightest difference to the issue"*. In which case, I will wholeheartedly agree.

I have clearly stated, including the OP title, that it isn't population alone that shall tip our economic activity from sustainable to unsustainable, if we have not already gone past that point, as some reports are saying.

The problem is still the issue of rising living standards in developing nations (as is their undeniable right), which means an ever increasing demand on goods and services, more mining, construction, use of non nonrenewables, degradation of ecosystems, etc.

And obviously, the more people there are, the greater the scale of the problem. This is not my personal view, it is a proposition that is supported by numerous studies;

Abstract
''Within the context of Earth’s limited natural resources and assimilation capacity, the current environmental footprint of humankind is not sustainable. Assessing land, water, energy, material, and other footprints along supply chains is paramount in understanding the sustainability, efficiency, and equity of resource use from the perspective of producers, consumers, and government. We review current footprints and relate those to maximum sustainable levels, highlighting the need for future work on combining footprints, assessing trade-offs between them, improving computational techniques, estimating maximum sustainable footprint levels, and benchmarking efficiency of resource use. Ultimately, major transformative changes in the global economy are necessary to reduce humanity’s environmental footprint to sustainable levels.''

Wake up and smell the coffee, DBT. Those guys are only in it for the money. And the world is full of them, though obviously not overfull.

The World is full of them. Groaning under their presence. That's what makes it an unlikely scenario that adequate measures will taken in time to avert a major environmental crisis. A forced change in business practice appears most likely.

 

[ruby sparks]

Wake up and smell the coffee, DBT. Those guys are only in it for the money. And the world is full of them, though obviously not overfull.

The World is full of them. Groaning under their presence. That's what makes it an unlikely scenario that adequate measures will taken in time to avert a major environmental crisis. A forced change in business practice appears most likely.

No I meant the crooks that wrote the article.

 

[DBT]

Wake up and smell the coffee, DBT. Those guys are only in it for the money. And the world is full of them, though obviously not overfull.

The World is full of them. Groaning under their presence. That's what makes it an unlikely scenario that adequate measures will taken in time to avert a major environmental crisis. A forced change in business practice appears most likely.

No I meant the crooks that wrote the article.

Do you mean the abstract I quoted from the science page?

 

[Jokodo]

In the same sense in which the difference between a 0.9% and a 0.09% makes not the slightest difference - which was what DBT claimed.

I said that because, due to the scale of the problem of rising consumption, even if our current population happened to stabilize before mid century (which won't happen),

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

the issue of rising consumption and ecological degradation will have to be addressed long before the end of the century if a major disaster is to be averted. So whatever the growth rate for 2100 is bandied about, it seems to be a moot point.

...in which you admit that any problems connected to rising consumptions and ecological degradation cannot be meaningfully addressed from the corner of population control.

Sure, all else equal, they might be less urgent if we had one tenth of our population. And if the moon weren't orbiting earth, it could pass for a planet. However, in this real world, population itself is as much a moot point as the growth rate in the year 2100 (or as the fact that the moon does orbit the earth, causing tides that'll make the issue of rising sea levels all the more pressing). And the reasons why it's a moot point are exactly the same: That it's an issue that, to the extent that it needs, can, and should addressed, will only show meaningful effects at a timescales of centuries, not the mere decades we have left to address environmental degradation etc. (as you yourself say when you say they'll "have to be addressed long before the end of the century") and at that scale, it does very much look like it will have solved itself one way or the other, whether peak population is reached at 9.5 billion in the mid-21st century or at 14 in the mid-22nd.

And even if it doesn't, even if, by some magic, population continues to grow exponentially at almost today's rate (0.9% is almost today's rate), which will eventually make it a problem, it's still a problem that's independent from the one we're facing today.

 

[ruby sparks]

No I meant the crooks that wrote the article.

Do you mean the abstract I quoted from the science page?

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

 

[Speakpigeon]

And there always were men who said, and continue to say:

The Return

PEACE is declared, and I return
To 'Ackneystadt, but not the same;
Things 'ave transpired which made me learn
The size and meanin' of the game.
I did no more than others did,
I don't know where the change began;
I started as a average kid,
I finished as a thinkin' man.

If England was what England seems
An' not the England of our dreams,
But only putty, brass, an' paint,
'Ow quick we'd drop 'er! But she ain't!

etc...

Hey, don't you do that! You got me shivers on mine spine!

Notice, it's "England", not Britain as it would more likely be today I suspect.

Ah, yes, Rudyard; of course. My father got me to learn "If-", "Tu seras un homme mon fils".

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you.
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting.
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream —and not make dreams your master
If you can think —and not make thoughts your aim
If you can meet Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings —nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute,
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run.
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And —which is more— you’ll be a Man, my son!

Yeah, tu sera un homme mon fils. Who ever is?
EB

 

[bilby]

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
You need to put down the axe.

 

[4321lynx]

Notice, it's "England", not Britain as it would more likely be today I suspect.

It was always an English empire. The conquered Scots, Welsh and Irish did prove to be useful in exploring, conquering more, and running it. Great English reintroduction, that word, British.

 

[DBT]

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

If it is true, as the studies strongly suggest, that our current rate of consumption and use of resources is currently unsustainable, it can hardly become sustainable within a climate of increasing consumption driven by increasing living standards in developing nations.

Not without a radical transformation in the way we use resources.

That is the issue. Will we act decisively? Will we do enough in time to avert a major environment disaster?

Given how our Government and business leaders talk, it doesn't seem likely.

As it stands, it appears that any meaningful change in our behaviour, our consumption driven business practices, will be forced by environmental circumstances.

 

[bilby]

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

If it is true, as the studies strongly suggest, that our current rate of consumption and use of resources is currently unsustainable, it can hardly become sustainable within a climate of increasing consumption driven by increasing living standards in developing nations.

Not without a radical transformation in the way we use resources.

That is the issue. Will we act decisively? Will we do enough in time to avert a major environment disaster?

Given how our Government and business leaders talk, it doesn't seem likely.

As it stands, it appears that any meaningful change in our behaviour, our consumption driven business practices, will be forced by environmental circumstances.

So we are in agreement - the action that we must take is in respect of the way we use resources, and in respect of changes to our business practices - and nothing we could practically do to population could possibly be relevant on the necessary short timescales. So discussion of population is a red herring that distracts us from the actual things we need to do.

 

[DBT]

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

If it is true, as the studies strongly suggest, that our current rate of consumption and use of resources is currently unsustainable, it can hardly become sustainable within a climate of increasing consumption driven by increasing living standards in developing nations.

Not without a radical transformation in the way we use resources.

That is the issue. Will we act decisively? Will we do enough in time to avert a major environment disaster?

Given how our Government and business leaders talk, it doesn't seem likely.

As it stands, it appears that any meaningful change in our behaviour, our consumption driven business practices, will be forced by environmental circumstances.

So we are in agreement - the action that we must take is in respect of the way we use resources, and in respect of changes to our business practices - and nothing we could practically do to population could possibly be relevant on the necessary short timescales. So discussion of population is a red herring that distracts us from the actual things we need to do.

I'd say it is an issue of both. Rate of consumption in relation to population size. Given that our planet is a finite size and resources there must be an upper limit for both population size and consumption rate, relating to whatever ratio of the two factors happens to exceed sustainability, be it long term or short term.

 

[Jokodo]

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

If it is true, as the studies strongly suggest, that our current rate of consumption and use of resources is currently unsustainable, it can hardly become sustainable within a climate of increasing consumption driven by increasing living standards in developing nations.

Not without a radical transformation in the way we use resources.

That is the issue. Will we act decisively? Will we do enough in time to avert a major environment disaster?

Given how our Government and business leaders talk, it doesn't seem likely.

As it stands, it appears that any meaningful change in our behaviour, our consumption driven business practices, will be forced by environmental circumstances.

I've said it before, you really need to keep better track of your own claims. Here's a snippet from our exchange:

(...) even if our current population happened to stabilize before mid century (which won't happen)(...)

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

I didn't ask why you are sure that "our current rate of consumption and doing business (...) is unsustainable", and your answer does nothing at all to support what you did claim.

 

[ruby sparks]

So we are in agreement - the action that we must take is in respect of the way we use resources, and in respect of changes to our business practices - and nothing we could practically do to population could possibly be relevant on the necessary short timescales. So discussion of population is a red herring that distracts us from the actual things we need to do.

I'd say it is an issue of both.

Of course it is. In fact, 'both' is arguably not the right term. It's lots of things, all in interactive flux and operating in elaborate feedback loops. It's very complex indeed. The main drivers are demographics (including total population change) economic activity and consumption, social issues and technology. Although for convenience, they can be approximated into 'people' and 'what they do', and what happens to both (or all) makes a lot of difference, even in short timescales. This is well understood.

For example, the IPCC, the largest internationally accepted authority on climate change with the most widespread scientific support, produces 'emissions scenarios' covering the period up to 2100:



Each of the 6 modelled 'outcomes' (there are 3 within A1) relates to a different mix of all the relevant factors, including different rates of population change, which the IPCC recognises as one of the driving forces:

"This Report reinforces our understanding that the main driving forces of future greenhouse gas trajectories will continue to be demographic change, social and economic development, and the rate and direction of technological change.

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf

To peddle the idea that population is not a problem or makes not the slightest difference, even over short timescales, is to fly in the face of established and widely accepted understanding. That there are a few in this thread doing that merely says something about the number of untenable and idiotic ideas floating around the internet and the existence of fools who give them credibility.

 

[DBT]

I've said it before, you really need to keep better track of your own claims. Here's a snippet from our exchange:

(...) even if our current population happened to stabilize before mid century (which won't happen)(...)

Not that it matters much, but why are you so sure about that?

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

I didn't ask why you are sure that "our current rate of consumption and doing business (...) is unsustainable", and your answer does nothing at all to support what you did claim.

Nothing you quote contradicts my position. That it is a combination of population size and consumption rate that will tip us from sustainability to unsustainability, if, according to some reports, it already hasn't.

The greater the size of the population in relation to rising consumption just hastens the process of environmental decline and collapse.

There are no contradictions here.

 

[Jokodo]

I've said it before, you really need to keep better track of your own claims. Here's a snippet from our exchange:

Because according to studies (links and quotes provided) our current rate of consumption and doing business ( growth and profit driven) is unsustainable in the long term.

I didn't ask why you are sure that "our current rate of consumption and doing business (...) is unsustainable", and your answer does nothing at all to support what you did claim.

Nothing you quote contradicts my position. That it is a combination of population size and consumption rate that will tip us from sustainability to unsustainability, if, according to some reports, it already hasn't.

The greater the size of the population in relation to rising consumption just hastens the process of environmental decline and collapse.

There are no contradictions here.

I didn't say there are contradictions. It's just you didn't respond *at all* to my question. Almost as if you hadn't read my post...

 

[ruby sparks]

....it is a combination of population size and consumption rate that will tip us from sustainability to unsustainability, if, according to some reports, it already hasn't.

The greater the size of the population in relation to rising consumption just hastens the process of environmental decline and collapse.

At least 'total collapse' seems to be unlikely (though not impossible). The issue seems to have more to do with how bumpy the ride is going to be. Environmental decline and partial collapse are already happening. Population is one of the main contributing factors currently and recently hastening the processes, along with the other forces identified, in a complicated, interactive amalgam. To deny this is to deny reality and basic facts. Some of the positions argued for in this thread are quite simply embarrassing, especially in a supposedly rationalist discussion forum.