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

[DBT]

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?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As I stated in another thread it depends on what kind of planet one wishes to inhabit.

 

[bilby]

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.



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.

 

[steve_bank]

The western system is based on growth,, in general it goes back to early trading cultures. Expanding markets.

Capital invest based on expectation of a return on investment plus profit. That requires population growth. Always has.

China tried population control and ended up having to relinquish the attempt.

A steady state population economy would be difficult under the present system . If all people are engaged in productive work, there is no way to implement new products and services without expanding population. It is the long term flaw in Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism.

Retirement plans 50 years to maturity require return on investment plus gains. That requires growth and increased consumption of resources.

Centuries back England had a wood supply problem. They were running out of trees. Peasants were not allowed to fell trees or pull off branches. It is the origin of the term 'by hook or by crook'. The problem was solved by importing timber from North American colonies.

In ancient Greece the color purple dye came from a particular ses critter that was harvested to extinction.

A few decades back the northeast cod stocks were depleted after deregulation allowed uncontrolled growth in fishing boat licences. Initially it was an investment bonanza.

Factory ships vacuum up fish. You can map out the expansion of Chinese factory fishing as it expanded away from China as wares were overfished.

There was something in the news recently about French and English fishing boats exchanging gunfire over claims. Norway planted its flag on a tiny rock sticking out of the ocean laying claim to fishing rights around it. There have been several conflicts between Philippine fishing boats and Chinese warships of fishing rights claims. China arbitrary redrew international maritime boundaries to include prime fishing grounds. The Filipinos ran an old cargo ship aground on a tiny atol keeping it manned to claim nearby waters.

That is just the beginning. A cursory review of history will say military conflict over resources is in the future. The worse case scenario is nuclear weapons. The Iraq Iran war was over historical claims to waterways.

Unless we quickly grow global wisdom and cooperation the collapse of western civilization as it is seems likely from history. WWII swept away all the old systems and aristocratic hereditary powers paving the way for postwar liberal democracies. The democracies are failing the Darwin Test.

It may happen suddenly or gradually. What Trump has demonstrated is the underlying weaknesses of the western alliances. Inability to work cooperatively.

Saudi is looking at or has already towed icebergs for water.

Resources are not infinite or remotely so. The rejection of conservation is the mantra of the white conservative Christians over there. Earth was given to humans to exploit.

 

[repoman]

Ok Steve, what is the excuse for the Chinese?

At any rate, I am probably the most pessimistic on this board I used to visit websites like

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2016/02/02/no-one-gets-out-alive/

 

[Jokodo]

The western system is based on growth,, in general it goes back to early trading cultures. Expanding markets.

Capital invest based on expectation of a return on investment plus profit. That requires population growth. Always has.

Where's the logical connection?

China tried population control and ended up having to relinquish the attempt.

In what sense did China have to relinquish its attempt at population control?

A steady state population economy would be difficult under the present system . If all people are engaged in productive work, there is no way to implement new products and services without expanding population.

Do only newborns buy new stuff?

It is the long term flaw in Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism.

Retirement plans 50 years to maturity require return on investment plus gains. That requires growth and increased consumption of resources.

Centuries back England had a wood supply problem. They were running out of trees. Peasants were not allowed to fell trees or pull off branches. It is the origin of the term 'by hook or by crook'. The problem was solved by importing timber from North American colonies.

In ancient Greece the color purple dye came from a particular ses critter that was harvested to extinction.

A few decades back the northeast cod stocks were depleted after deregulation allowed uncontrolled growth in fishing boat licences. Initially it was an investment bonanza.

Factory ships vacuum up fish. You can map out the expansion of Chinese factory fishing as it expanded away from China as wares were overfished.

Anecdotes about groups of humans overusing a particular resource at in a particular time and location are no evidence that this is inevitable globally.

Resources are not infinite or remotely so. The rejection of conservation is the mantra of the white conservative Christians over there. Earth was given to humans to exploit.

If you think anyone in this thread is rejecting conservation, you'll sure be happy to point out who and were?

 

[DBT]

Maybe there are differing ideas on the nature and level of conservation needed? One persons idea of conservation may be another persons perception of neglect?

 

[steve_bank]

No excuses for the Chinese. They are doing in a way what Imperial Japan did leading up to WWII. Seize as much resources as possible.

Historically China's actions on resources is leading up to a military confrontation. They built an artificial island military base. It is always about population and resources. Hitler's plan was to depopulate part of the Soviet Union For resources and population growth. Japan started the war with US over oil and other resource embargos for Japan's actions in China. The two Iraq wars were about oil. History repeating itself back to the origins of civilizations and the need for growth.

Conservation is an attitude not necessarily an fixed ideology. An awareness our actions have long term consequences that affect the future of humanity.

There is the cliche 'the ugly American'. A global traver oblivious to culture and issues and sees the world only through American eyes.

To most people when they flush the toilet or put garbage cans out for pickup it is out of sight out of mind. There is no collective consciousness of the environmental impact of our economic system/

 

[steve_bank]

What woukd happen if everyone in the wrold consumed food and goods on a par with North America and Western Europe?I heard it said if Chines consumes an extra few six packs of beer A YEAR it would take the wheat harvest of Canada and then some,

 

[Elixir]

What woukd happen if everyone in the wrold consumed food and goods on a par with North America and Western Europe?I heard it said if Chines consumes an extra few six packs of beer A YEAR it would take the wheat harvest of Canada and then some,

I've "heard it said" that the earth can support around a trillion people. And it was backed up with lots of data/facts. I'm pretty sure some salient facts were omitted from the thesis, but ignoring that, my concern is - whothehell would want to live in a world like that?

IOW the world's carrying capacity is irrelevant. What matters is how many people can live sustainably and happily on this planet. IMHO the answer is "fewer than there already are".

 

[steve_bank]

What woukd happen if everyone in the wrold consumed food and goods on a par with North America and Western Europe?I heard it said if Chines consumes an extra few six packs of beer A YEAR it would take the wheat harvest of Canada and then some,

I've "heard it said" that the earth can support around a trillion people. And it was backed up with lots of data/facts. I'm pretty sure some salient facts were omitted from the thesis, but ignoring that, my concern is - whothehell would want to live in a world like that?

IOW the world's carrying capacity is irrelevant. What matters is how many people can live sustainably and happily on this planet. IMHO the answer is "fewer than there already are".

Exactly. When confined rat population reaches a threshold they turn on each other, Watched in a video on a science show.

 

[DBT]

What woukd happen if everyone in the wrold consumed food and goods on a par with North America and Western Europe?I heard it said if Chines consumes an extra few six packs of beer A YEAR it would take the wheat harvest of Canada and then some,

I've "heard it said" that the earth can support around a trillion people. And it was backed up with lots of data/facts. I'm pretty sure some salient facts were omitted from the thesis, but ignoring that, my concern is - whothehell would want to live in a world like that?

IOW the world's carrying capacity is irrelevant. What matters is how many people can live sustainably and happily on this planet. IMHO the answer is "fewer than there already are".

I suspect that a study that claims the planet can support a trillion people is a seriously flawed study....perhaps 20 billion or so if most of the population have the ecological footprint of hunter gatherers.....living on rodents, fungi and berries..,

 

[steve_bank]

China and India are around 1 billion each.

In Europe the Crusades in part was a place to get rid of a growing number of healthy males with noting to do. Same with the Brits and colonial America.

Saudi Arabia is essentially a welfare sates supported by oil revenue. They today have a problem with growing numbers of males with nothing to do. What would a trillion people do? Law enforcement? Population centers already have trouble with crime and several forms of disaffected terrorists.

We have destructive factionalism inside the US as well as globally. What would bind a trillion people culturally and politcally?

 

[steve_bank]

There is also quality of life and mental health. Here in Seattle you can see the Cascade Mountains, Olympic Mountains, and the Puget Sound. A few hours west and yoyo are on the coast with low population density and wild narural areas to retret to. Same with a few hours east.

I was born in NYC. Haven't back there in many years. I used to go back to vest relatives in the area. I grew to hate flying into NYC and having to get on the Long Island Expressway. I became a PNW dweller to the bone. Flying into SeaTac Airport and seeing the mountains all the green on the way in was a relief. There is a mental health aspect to increasing population. Unless we want to be a termite colony.

I think it was the 80s when a Japanese leader said France could not build a decent car. The French leader relied they did not want to be an ant colony or something close. I believe modern Japan with high densities has a problem with high stress close living.

I was a teen in Ct next to NY during the 60s blackout. High population density areas like NYC quickly deteriorate when services break down. Another consideration.

 

[Jokodo]

China and India are around 1 billion each.

In Europe the Crusades in part was a place to get rid of a growing number of healthy males with noting to do. Same with the Brits and colonial America.

Saudi Arabia is essentially a welfare sates supported by oil revenue. They today have a problem with growing numbers of males with nothing to do. What would a trillion people do? Law enforcement? Population centers already have trouble with crime and several forms of disaffected terrorists.

We have destructive factionalism inside the US as well as globally. What would bind a trillion people culturally and politcally?

In what meaningful sense do "population centres already have trouble with crime"? Globally, crime has never been lower than in the last couple decades.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe there are differing ideas on the nature and level of conservation needed? One persons idea of conservation may be another persons perception of neglect?

So you too, like steve, go the route of insinuating that some people are opposing conservation efforts without pointing out who and where?

 

[steve_bank]

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

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

A trillion people? Human nature what it is gangs and factions would be bigger and stronger than ever. Unless you want to ignore human history right up to today. Despots and demagogues would rise on a greater scale.

Liberal democracy appears to be failing. How is order maintained with 1 trillion people?

Plus all the human waste and garbage.

 

[DBT]

So you too, like steve, go the route of insinuating that some people are opposing conservation efforts without pointing out who and where?

There is no set standard that I am aware of.

Based on what people say and write, there are differing ideas on what we need to do in terms of conservation and the way ahead.

One political party says this, another says that. People express a range of views and opinions.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy and water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

The total amount of electricity consumed worldwide was 19,504 TWh in 2013, 16,503 TWh in 2008, 15,105 TWh in 2005, and 12,116 TWh in 2000. By the end of 2014, the total installed electricity generating capacity worldwide was nearly 6.142 TW (million MW) which only includes generation connected to local electricity grids.[14] In addition there is an unknown amount of heat and electricity consumed off-grid by isolated villages and industries. In 2014, the share of world energy consumption for electricity generation by source was coal at 40.8%, natural gas at 21.6%, nuclear at 10.6%, hydro at 16.4%, other sources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.) at 6.3% and oil at 4.3%. Coal and natural gas were the most used energy fuels for generating electricity. The world's electricity consumption was 18,608 TWh[citation needed] in 2012. This figure is about 18% smaller than the generated electricity, due to grid losses, storage losses, and self-consumption from power plants (gross generation). Cogeneration (CHP) power stations use some of the heat that is otherwise wasted for use in buildings or in industrial processes.

You can look at water per capita and calculate water demand per billion increase.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1455
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263156/water-consumption-in-selected-countries/

per year SciAmerican.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/

Overall, the world is using 9,087 billion cubic meters of water per year. China, India and the U.S. consumed the highest annual totals: 1,207 billion, 1,182 billion and 1,053 billion cubic meters, respectively, followed by Brazil at 482 billion. But the water consumed per person in these and other countries varies considerably, due primarily to higher living standards or widespread waste among consumers. The U.S. had the world's highest per capita water footprint, at 2,842 cubic meters per annum. Meat consumption accounts for 30 percent of the American figure, and sugar consumption is responsible for another 15 percent, Hoekstra says. In India, where few people consume much meat, the individual footprint is only 1,089 cubic meters a year. The global annual average per capita is 1,385 cubic meters.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=757

Global supply

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/watersupply

The scale of the challenge is large and becoming more complex. Population and economic growth are pushing the limits of the world’s finite water resources. In some cases water scarcity is already constraining economic growth. Lack of access to improved water supply and sanitation services impose huge costs on society, and especially for the poor. Even where access exists, services have been characterized for decades by poor management, inadequate financing and low levels of investment. Very few water or wastewater utilities in the developing world recover adequate operation and maintenance costs from customers and only a handful recovers debt service and depreciation. Despite the importance of water for development, in a recent sample of 37 countries from Africa, 82% of governments indicated that financing was insufficient to reach national targets for drinking water. The uncertainties brought about by political economy and climate change only add to this sector’s already considerable challenges. Not surprisingly, world leaders now rank water as one of their top critical issues.

video CSPAN

https://www.c-span.org/video/?185578-5/global-water-supply

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Currently around 7 billion.

Fed and watered like in aupmanyav's pictures ? What kind of life will 20 billion people have? Every billion increase adds another China or India.
The population density in Bangladesh is around 1000/km^2 (.4 mi^2). The quality of life is abysmal.

Economics is thermodynamics. Movement of energy and matter/materials, processing, and efficiencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

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

 

[Jokodo]

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

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

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

 

[Jokodo]

So you too, like steve, go the route of insinuating that some people are opposing conservation efforts without pointing out who and where?

There is no set standard that I am aware of.

Based on what people say and write, there are differing ideas on what we need to do in terms of conservation and the way ahead.

One political party says this, another says that. People express a range of views and opinions.

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

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

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