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

[DrZoidberg]

How can numbers of people be disentangled from other issues such as the effects of human activity? More people equals more pollution and damage to the environment. It doesn't have to be that way. In theory we could have twice as many people if on average they all drastically reduced their carbon footprint or what have you, but that's a hypothetical. In reality, more people is creating and has created more pollution and damage and as a result, it seems we are on course for something not very nice.

Sorry, but I'm still not getting this objection to citing population as a factor. I agree it can be overstated, yes, and that it's not easy to do something about and that because of that we might be better focusing on other countermeasures, but surely it's just a matter of emphasis and we could be promoting both or all?

There's a problem with this view. It's a bit pie in the sky. The 20'th century is full of social experiments of the type "if only everybody would be doing this instead, everything would be so much better". Hunter gatherers adorned their bodies with feathers of rare birds, of with carved bone, of a bone that was super hard to carve in, and danced complicated dances to out dance the others. Humans are basically the same today. But now it's Rolex watches, drive SUV's that run on nothing but endagered owls, and tastes for music where nobody has heard of the bands. This is an intrinsic part of human psychology. It doesn't matter how great it would be if people would be better off not doing this, unless there's a mechanic by which to have higher status than others, nobody is going to care. The nice thing about capitalism is that it's the most superior system to cater to our bodily needs and comfort. But a side effect of capitalism is that we gain status through consumerism. Unless you fix that, nothing is going to change.

I'm a lefty, so I hang out with "environmentally conscious" people. They're not. Environmentalism has just become yet another method by which to gain status. I know a woman who lives in a huge house in the country, drives a car everywhere, has dreadlocks, is super fixated about recycling. That's what environmentalism looks like today. It's just total bullshit.

We're nowhere. We need to cater to incentives that actually work on humans. We've yet to solve that problem.

 

[ruby sparks]

At the risk of being accused of ONLY pushing the population issue (which I am at the moment, but only to counter the suggestion that it should not be a consideration)........

"Our results also show that reduced population growth could
make a significant contribution to global emissions reductions.
Several analyses have estimated how much emissions would have
to be reduced by 2050 to meet long-term policy goals such as
avoiding warming of more than 2 °C (27) or preventing a doubling
of CO2 concentrations through implementation of a portfolio of
mitigation measures characterized as “stabilization wedges”.
Our estimate that following a lower population path could reduce
emissions 1.4–2.5 GtC/y by 2050 is equivalent to 16–29% of the
emission reductions necessary to achieve these goals or approximately
1–1.5 wedges of emissions reductions (SI Text has details of
this calculation). By the end of the century, the effect of slower
population growth would be even more significant, reducing total
emissions from fossil fuel use by 37–41% across the two scenarios."

Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/09/30/1004581107.full.pdf

So as far as I can tell, when they say 'following a lower population path' they are referring to the lower path on this predictive diagram:



So it suggests that what happens to population over the next 30-80 years is going to make quite a big difference. And the range of population possibilities in the UN estimates include (at the higher path) for population to still be increasing by 2100, so it would seem at least a bit risky to just assume the problem will sort itself out.

 

[bilby]

That's a circular argument though. The question is whether overpopulation is a problem for the environment; But according to you, overpopulation is defined as 'a population level that is a problem for the environment', and so the question has been beggared.

The current population might be a problem. But by framing that as 'overpopulation might be a problem' you leave no possibility that it also might not.

I said ''overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.''

I did no mean to suggest that this is a complete definition of overpopulation.

As SB pointed out, another definition may be were the population of a City exceeds the infrastructure of a City, where its citizens live in crowded condition, feeling under stress by the conditions, perhaps unable to move for financial reasons, or whatever.

This could be a temporary state of affairs, the city has room to expand but this will take time, or it may be long term. Whatever the case, while conditions remain as they are, that City, being crowded, being congested, is overpopulated.

Overcrowding is a local issue. Population is a global issue. Conflating the two is unhelpful in the extreme.

The solution to overcrowding (insofar as one is needed) is simply for people to go elsewhere.

Nobody seriously thinks that climate change could be due to overcrowding.

 

[bilby]

How can numbers of humans be disentangled from human activity? In the real world, the actual state of affairs is that more people has resulted in more pollution and damage to the environment. It doesn't have to be that way and it's not 'just the numbers' which have caused it, obviously. It's (roughly speaking) numbers in conjunction with their activity. In theory we could have twice as many people if on average they all drastically reduced their carbon footprint or what have you, but that's a hypothetical. In reality, more people is creating and has created more pollution and damage and as a result, it seems we are on course for something not very nice.

Sorry, but I'm still not getting this objection to citing population as a factor, or overpopulation indeed. I agree it can be overstated, yes, and that it's not easy to do something about and that because of that we might be better focusing on other countermeasures, and I don't think anyone here, even those including population in their points, are setting aside other factors and countermeasures, but isn't it just a matter of emphasis and we could be promoting both or all? It's not either or, surely.

I think it's a bit of a straw man that anyone here is pushing population or overpopulation as THE cause above all others. What has happened, I think, is that the issue of population has come to the fore in the discussion because of the suggestion that it is not a relevant factor or concern, and some have been disagreeing with that, that's all.

I still disagree with that. And I am adamant that it is not only an error, but is one of the most counterproductive positions possible, largely because of its widespread popularity.

"Overpopulation" has all the hallmarks of religious belief. It's adherents are many and vocal. And they do a lot of harm with their good intentions.

 

[ruby sparks]

And as to measures that could be taken or encouraged, this paper suggests that extending Family Planning initiatives (to cover what it calls the currently 'Unmet Need' for Family Planning) is one way of achieving lower world population growth:

World Population Prospects and Unmet Need for Family Planning
https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/GHD/FuturesGroupFinal.pdf

"Over the past 30 years, the use of modern family planning methods has increased dramatically in the
developing world, leading to a fall in fertility rates. Yet there are still significant levels of demand for
family planning that are unmet. If this unmet need were met, unintended pregnancies would be fewer,
women’s health and lives would be improved, and the consequent impact on fertility would result in
lower population growth and measured development benefits."

Would anyone here say that this is not relevant?

 

[ruby sparks]

I still disagree with that. And I am adamant that it is not only an error, but is one of the most counterproductive positions possible, largely because of its widespread popularity.

"Overpopulation" has all the hallmarks of religious belief. It's adherents are many and vocal. And they do a lot of harm with their good intentions.

The widespread popularity of what though? That overpopulation is THE problem above all others? I would agree that that would not be warranted, and could be counter-productive, but I have yet to see it surface here and am not sure how widespread its popularity actually is, since very little if anything has been posted to suggest that it is widely popular, despite requests for it. Can you cite something to show that it is in fact widely popular or has all the hallmarks of a religious belief? Because then I'll consider it. Bear in mind that anecdote is not data and that your are saying it has 'widespread popularity' and has 'all the hallmarks of religious belief', so you have set yourself quite a high bar. And it would have to be said that some people overstating something would not be a good reason to understate it in response, because both would be wrong.

What is popular it seems is that overpopulation is generally considered one among a number of issues, and that the case is made with science not religion. And that seems fair enough to me at this point.

And in a way it's only your quasi-religious insistence that it is not relevant that has led me to dwell on it at this time.

And as to disagreeing about whether the correct term is overpopulation or population (sigh) we could if you like use the latter and go back to your statement that climate change is "independent of population levels". Which I do not think stands up to reasonable scrutiny except via a hypothetical and artificial pulling of levers to suit. In reality, on earth, climate change is not and has not been independent of population levels, because dramatically increased population (along with the activity of that population) has demonstrably increased the burden (emissions for example).

And if you would draw back from that statement, or just stop reiterating it in one way or another, I for one would be happy to drop population considerations and spend time on other issues and countermeasures, of which there are many, and they may indeed offer more promise than population control, comparatively speaking. No prob. It's about emphasis, not about taking any one factor out of the complex equation.

 

[Politesse]

Then why is it "OVERpopulation" rather than "current population"? What does OVERpopulation mean?

Well, for one thing, it's a bit like describing inflation as "over-monetization". Like sure, situationally there might be too much cash flowing around, but calling it that implies that the money is at fault, rather than the other many potential causes of inflation. If the problem is "over-monetization" it sure sounds like reducing the overall amount of money would help. But, of course, it almost certainly wouldn't, at least not by itself.

So.....I'm confused...are you saying that reducing the population would not help?

I don't think it would be greatly effective in solving our environmental crisis, no. Unless by reducing the population you mean a communist-style truncuation of the wealthy elite class. There are a lot of people in the world, sure, but very few of them play any meaningful role in defining ecological policy, nor do most of them consume much in terms of resources, nor have much of a carbon footprint. Our most destructive tendencies are aimed squarely at the manufacture of luxury goods such as automobiles and electronics that the vast majority of global citizens will never see.

 

[Politesse]

That's a circular argument though. The question is whether overpopulation is a problem for the environment; But according to you, overpopulation is defined as 'a population level that is a problem for the environment', and so the question has been beggared.

The current population might be a problem. But by framing that as 'overpopulation might be a problem' you leave no possibility that it also might not.

I said ''overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.''

I did no mean to suggest that this is a complete definition of overpopulation.

As SB pointed out, another definition may be were the population of a City exceeds the infrastructure of a City, where its citizens live in crowded condition, feeling under stress by the conditions, perhaps unable to move for financial reasons, or whatever.

This could be a temporary state of affairs, the city has room to expand but this will take time, or it may be long term. Whatever the case, while conditions remain as they are, that City, being crowded, being congested, is overpopulated.

Overcrowding is a local issue. Population is a global issue. Conflating the two is unhelpful in the extreme.

The solution to overcrowding (insofar as one is needed) is simply for people to go elsewhere.

Nobody seriously thinks that climate change could be due to overcrowding.

Wait, are you saying that population isn't a local issue? That sounds like a bizarre claim to me. We aren't evenly distributed on the planet surface.

I do agree that "crowding" is not hurting the planet. We're actually much more efficient consumers of resources, generally speaking, when living densely. The carbon footprint of a Manhattan apartment, for instance, is much smaller than that of a suburban house upstate.

 

[ruby sparks]

So.....I'm confused...are you saying that reducing the population would not help?

I don't think it would be greatly effective in solving our environmental crisis, no.

So, not like your analogy with overmonetized then?

Some research, such as the stuff I posted, suggests it may have more than an insignificant effect.

Unless by reducing the population you mean a communist-style truncuation of the wealthy elite class.

No, I am not suggesting we cull average Americans (carbon footprint 16.4 tons per capita).

 

[Politesse]

So, not like your analogy with overmonetized then?

Are you under the impression that solving inflation is as simple as just burning existing currency?

 

[ruby sparks]

So, not like your analogy with overmonetized then?

Are you under the impression that solving inflation is as simple as just burning existing currency?

No. In fact, I am woeful at understanding economics. All I was going by was that you chose, as an example of words with the prefix 'over', a word which you said the reduction of (money) would not help. And since that is not the case for world population, I was just pointing out that your comparison didn't work.

 

[bilby]

Overcrowding is a local issue. Population is a global issue. Conflating the two is unhelpful in the extreme.

The solution to overcrowding (insofar as one is needed) is simply for people to go elsewhere.

Nobody seriously thinks that climate change could be due to overcrowding.

Wait, are you saying that population isn't a local issue? That sounds like a bizarre claim to me. We aren't evenly distributed on the planet surface.

We choose to concentrate. Crowding has been a feature of humanity since world population was only a few million. I am saying that crowding and population are different and unrelated things.

I do agree that "crowding" is not hurting the planet. We're actually much more efficient consumers of resources, generally speaking, when living densely. The carbon footprint of a Manhattan apartment, for instance, is much smaller than that of a suburban house upstate.

Indeed. Neither crowding, nor current population levels, are a problem for the environment.

If we burn all of the accessible coal, oil, and gas, the climate would be affected to exactly the same extent if that burning was done by a million rich people, a billion well off people, or the eight billion people we have right now.

 

[DBT]

At the risk of being accused of ONLY pushing the population issue (which I am at the moment, but only to counter the suggestion that it should not be a consideration)........

"Our results also show that reduced population growth could
make a significant contribution to global emissions reductions.
Several analyses have estimated how much emissions would have
to be reduced by 2050 to meet long-term policy goals such as
avoiding warming of more than 2 °C (27) or preventing a doubling
of CO2 concentrations through implementation of a portfolio of
mitigation measures characterized as “stabilization wedges”.
Our estimate that following a lower population path could reduce
emissions 1.4–2.5 GtC/y by 2050 is equivalent to 16–29% of the
emission reductions necessary to achieve these goals or approximately
1–1.5 wedges of emissions reductions (SI Text has details of
this calculation). By the end of the century, the effect of slower
population growth would be even more significant, reducing total
emissions from fossil fuel use by 37–41% across the two scenarios."

Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/09/30/1004581107.full.pdf

So as far as I can tell, when they say 'following a lower population path' they are referring to the lower path on this predictive diagram:

View attachment 18208

So it suggests that what happens to population over the next 30-80 years is going to make quite a big difference. And the range of population possibilities in the UN estimates include (at the higher path) for population to still be increasing by 2100, so it would seem at least a bit risky to just assume the problem will sort itself out.

Yes. Not to mention that we would not be in this position if our world population had stabilized at 2 billion.

 

[bilby]

At the risk of being accused of ONLY pushing the population issue (which I am at the moment, but only to counter the suggestion that it should not be a consideration)........

"Our results also show that reduced population growth could
make a significant contribution to global emissions reductions.
Several analyses have estimated how much emissions would have
to be reduced by 2050 to meet long-term policy goals such as
avoiding warming of more than 2 °C (27) or preventing a doubling
of CO2 concentrations through implementation of a portfolio of
mitigation measures characterized as “stabilization wedges”.
Our estimate that following a lower population path could reduce
emissions 1.4–2.5 GtC/y by 2050 is equivalent to 16–29% of the
emission reductions necessary to achieve these goals or approximately
1–1.5 wedges of emissions reductions (SI Text has details of
this calculation). By the end of the century, the effect of slower
population growth would be even more significant, reducing total
emissions from fossil fuel use by 37–41% across the two scenarios."

Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/09/30/1004581107.full.pdf

So as far as I can tell, when they say 'following a lower population path' they are referring to the lower path on this predictive diagram:

View attachment 18208

So it suggests that what happens to population over the next 30-80 years is going to make quite a big difference. And the range of population possibilities in the UN estimates include (at the higher path) for population to still be increasing by 2100, so it would seem at least a bit risky to just assume the problem will sort itself out.

Not to mention that we would not be in this position if our world population had stabilized at 2 billion.

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Unless you are planning to use your time machine to go back to 1927 (or rather, about 1900) and gift the oral contraceptive, female education, and low infant mortality to the world, that's not a very helpful observation.

Anyway, we are told that two billion is too many; 650 million is apparently the target, so you need to go back to about 1700.

 

[DBT]

That's a circular argument though. The question is whether overpopulation is a problem for the environment; But according to you, overpopulation is defined as 'a population level that is a problem for the environment', and so the question has been beggared.

The current population might be a problem. But by framing that as 'overpopulation might be a problem' you leave no possibility that it also might not.

I said ''overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.''

I did no mean to suggest that this is a complete definition of overpopulation.

As SB pointed out, another definition may be were the population of a City exceeds the infrastructure of a City, where its citizens live in crowded condition, feeling under stress by the conditions, perhaps unable to move for financial reasons, or whatever.

This could be a temporary state of affairs, the city has room to expand but this will take time, or it may be long term. Whatever the case, while conditions remain as they are, that City, being crowded, being congested, is overpopulated.

Overcrowding is a local issue. Population is a global issue. Conflating the two is unhelpful in the extreme.

Depends. Overcrowding can be a purely local issue, or it could be related to the overall malaise of an overpopulated planet where most of the capital cities of the world are crowded and congested because there are so many people Not only in the major centres, but more people moving into desirable rural towns and regional centres, Cairns, Townsville, etc.

The solution to overcrowding (insofar as one is needed) is simply for people to go elsewhere.

They do, where possible, where there is something for them, employment, business opportunities, a desirable location. Not many people want to move to some small town on the edge of the Simpson Desert.

Nobody seriously thinks that climate change could be due to overcrowding.

Not to overcrowding but the sheer numbers of us consuming fossil fuels, etc, at a prodigious rate. Even worse when the poor of the world raise their living standard to our level.....overcrowding is simply a byproduct of too many people wanting to live in a desirable location.

You are probably aware of our Government's hair brained proposal to send new migrants to the bush in an attempt at decentralization?

 

[DBT]

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Unless you are planning to use your time machine to go back to 1927 (or rather, about 1900) and gift the oral contraceptive, female education, and low infant mortality to the world, that's not a very helpful observation.

Anyway, we are told that two billion is too many; 650 million is apparently the target, so you need to go back to about 1700.

You took my remark too literally. If we had we been smarter about it then, we would not be in this position. The information was available. Just as we have information now, but apparently lack the will or drive to take radical action, implement the necessary emission targets, renewables. etc.

 

[bilby]

Overcrowding is a local issue. Population is a global issue. Conflating the two is unhelpful in the extreme.

Depends. Overcrowding can be a purely local issue, or it could be related to the overall malaise of an overpopulated planet where most of the capital cities of the world are crowded and congested because there are so many people Not only in the major centres, but more people moving into desirable rural towns and regional centres, Cairns, Townsville, etc.

The solution to overcrowding (insofar as one is needed) is simply for people to go elsewhere.

They do, where possible, where there is something for them, employment, business opportunities, a desirable location. Not many people want to move to some small town on the edge of the Simpson Desert.

Nobody seriously thinks that climate change could be due to overcrowding.

Not to overcrowding but the sheer numbers of us consuming fossil fuels, etc, at a prodigious rate. Even worse when the poor of the world raise their living standard to our level.....overcrowding is simply a byproduct of too many people wanting to live in a desirable location.

You are probably aware of our Government's hair brained proposal to send new migrants to the bush in an attempt at decentralization?

That's nothing new. When I migrated here 25 years ago, there were lots of incentives to live outside the capital cities. If my residency application had been marginal, I could have crossed the threshold by providing a stat dec that I would live in a remote area for at least 10 years.

But people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere, for the reasons you outline and more. And that's a GOOD thing. People concentrated in cities leave the wilderness for the wildlife.

 

[skepticalbip]

I wonder if an "Ender's Game" method of having the analyzer think that the planet being studied is just a simulation would be effective.

Basically, it would take away much of the bias from analysis.

What are the biases that we can have about whether there is underpopulation, underpopulation or moderate population levels?

Note, some of the biases may be actually helpful to the whole population in my opinion. But probably most only helpful for your kin.

The bias from being alive now and not thinking about distant past or future
The political biases related mostly to economic dogma
Biases related to ethnic conflict, racism or anti-racism
Short human lifespan, compared to geologic time, bias
Bias of looking for tech fixes, which often can pull through but sometimes not (thinking that tech fixes never work is also a bias)
Religious biases mostly thinking that god will fix it for us or it doesn't matter since heaven is the final destination.

That is a good idea. The problem that I see with people advocating their idea of the correct population is that they generally haven’t yet actually thought about what they think is the correct population. They instead have just accepted that there are too many people. There are a few who have actually thought about it but they are generally either misanthrops who want the world devoid of humanity or naturists who believe that humanity should be extremely limited to a population that can have no measurable impact on the world.

Your idea of gaming out what kind of world is desirable and functional would, at least, make them consider some goal other than "reducing population”.

 

[bilby]

To those who want to see a dramatic reduction in world population, I have just one message: "Great idea. You first".

 

[skepticalbip]

To those who want to see a dramatic reduction in world population, I have just one message: "Great idea. You first".

I have suggested that to a few. Their ensuing blank stare and stammer was priceless.