World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..
Over-population is already here and wreaking havoc on the environment.
Scout wrote: "Over-population is already here and wreaking havoc on the environment."Can you define the ideal population?
Graeme wrote: "Scout wrote: "Over-population is already here and wreaking havoc on the environment."Can you define the ideal population?"
Probably half what we currently have - so either reduce to that level and can't see that ever happening (Pandemics notwithstanding) or spread out into solar system/space stations to create more space and less impact - of course getting into space requires major impact
Philip wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Scout wrote: "Over-population is already here and wreaking havoc on the environment."Can you define the ideal population?"
Probably half what we currently have - so either reduce ..."
Why half, why not 25% or 75% - based on what criteria? How do you know that any of these numbers of people are significant of impact, and what number is safe?
Graeme wrote: "Philip wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Scout wrote: "Over-population is already here and wreaking havoc on the environment."Can you define the ideal population?"
Probably half what we currently have - so..."
Sorry, half was a flippant riposte not a carefully calculated number. As we have discussed before I am concerned about the impact of the current human population on the planet let alone a bigger one and in particular on oceans and forests with human caused pollution as well as human need for resources. More wealthy people (Even if total number stays the same) consume more of everything.
e.g. how many shirts you own is one of those odd statistics. Compare that to your father or grandfather or to an underdeveloped country in Asia or Africa. There are a billion people in India - if they had as much stuff as the average American or Western European, how much more waste would there be, how many more mines, how few fish left to feed.
With half population you could spread the same amount of stuff around as now, improve the average for the poor and still have enough shirts in your wardrobe. Simplistic calculation I appreciate.
Philip, I agree that we're consuming the earth's natural resources faster than they can be replenished, with dire consequences for animal, plant, and human populations, and that pollution and waste are huge problems. But I also understand that cutting the population by half would have dire economic implications. The elder population depends on contributions from younger members to sustain Social Security and other social programs. Decreasing tax bases would do harm to our ability to maintain effective governments and defenses. I'd say just aim for zero population growth and maintain what we have. And just talking about declining birth rates isn't a solution. Population numbers still increase.
As I've said earlier in this thread - Overpopulation is a dud issue that will be discarded in the relatively near future into the dustbin of history and replaced with a concern about human fertility levels.From the Lancet...
"Findings
The global TFR (Total Fertility Rate) in the reference scenario was forecasted to be 1·66 (95% UI 1·33–2·08) in 2100. In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100. The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71], Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]), China (732 million [456–1499]), the USA (336 million [248–456]), and Pakistan (248 million [151–427]). Findings also suggest a shifting age structure in many parts of the world, with 2·37 billion (1·91–2·87) individuals older than 65 years and 1·70 billion (1·11–2·81) individuals younger than 20 years, forecasted globally in 2100. By 2050, 151 countries were forecasted to have a TFR lower than the replacement level (TFR <2·1), and 183 were forecasted to have a TFR lower than replacement by 2100. 23 countries in the reference scenario, including Japan, Thailand, and Spain, were forecasted to have population declines greater than 50% from 2017 to 2100; China's population was forecasted to decline by 48·0% (−6·1 to 68·4). China was forecasted to become the largest economy by 2035 but in the reference scenario, the USA was forecasted to once again become the largest economy in 2098. Our alternative scenarios suggest that meeting the Sustainable Development Goals targets for education and contraceptive met need would result in a global population of 6·29 billion (4·82–8·73) in 2100 and a population of 6·88 billion (5·27–9·51) when assuming 99th percentile rates of change in these drivers."
REF: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...
China has a huge decline.
The US is static.
The destiny of the future is to be old.
2.73 billion more people before declining (they hope) to only 1.79 billion more at the end of the centuryLuckily I'll be gone before then as i cannot imagine what will be left of the planet and nature by then.
I guess it isn’t easy to find a common denominator here. The Spaniards should be very concerned about their shrinking nation, while Nigerians maybe - about checking the birth rate. Don’t know if still exists, but I remember Ukraine used to pay a family a very handsome bonus for every child born, because the negative population replacement rate became kinda severe
Graeme, the statistics you cited are 80 years in the future (2100), with a peak in 2064. I keep trying to see your point of view, but I think we need to curb population way before then. Sure, the earth can accommodate more people as far as available land mass, but at what price to the balance of nature? More people equals more destruction of the environment, more stress on food resources, more waste to deal with, more pollution. And soon we'll be fighting more and more over access to water. That fight has already begun. Can you respond to my concerns?
Hi Scout,(As always, I used to to believe as you do now...)
I'm going to unpack your last statement as there is a lot in there.
Sure, the earth can accommodate more people as far as available land mass, but at what price to the balance of nature?
Indeed - at what price. What are the parameters of this problem. What are the costs and how do we define those costs?
More people equals more destruction of the environment,
For me, the key argument for this position has been put forward by the Club of Rome and their use of Thomas Malthus and an MIT model constructed in the 70s.
Looking at the Club of Rome and the model they got from MIT REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lim...
States,
"The model was based on five variables: "population, food production, industrialization, pollution, and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources".[1]:25 At the time of the study, all these variables were increasing and were assumed to continue to grow exponentially, while the ability of technology to increase resources grew only linearly.[1] The authors intended to explore the possibility of a sustainable feedback pattern that would be achieved by altering growth trends among the five variables under three scenarios. They noted that their projections for the values of the variables in each scenario were predictions "only in the most limited sense of the word", and were only indications of the system's behavioral tendencies.[11] Two of the scenarios saw "overshoot and collapse" of the global system by the mid- to latter-part of the 21st century, while a third scenario resulted in a "stabilized world"."
My bold above.
This model is wrong on so many levels.
[1] Population is not growing exponentially - it's following an 'S,' curve, i.e. it will peak and then drop to a lower level.
[2] Food production - (increasingly) dependent on technology.
[3] Industrialization - dependent on technology. Industrialization in 1970 is not the same as industrialization in 2020.
[4] Pollution - extreme dependency on the technology used
[5] Resource consumption - extreme dependency on the technology used
[6] Assumes technology is developing in a linear way - No, technology is growing exponentially and brings about paradigm shifts that can change this whole equation in powerful ways.
The foundation of this belief system is based on a number of false premises and computer models that 'do not predict the future.'
Science has not discovered the power of prophecy (apart from the limited set of systems based on linear motion like planetary orbits) and can not tell us what the future will be like in 50 years time. (But, the human desire to believe we can know is never ending...)
more stress on food resources,
Thomas Malthus, with his
basically stated that,"Population multiplies geometrically and food arithmetically; therefore, whenever the food supply increases, population will rapidly grow to eliminate the abundance."
Written in 1798 and still wrong today. Wrong for 221 years and still going just as wrong....
Why was Malthus wrong? Humans are inventive and respond to increased demand with innovation to meet that demand. If Malthus had been an engineer instead of a cleric/economist - he might have understood the power of innovation, but of course he didn't understand what an engineer understands and his ignorant ideas have been propagated for at least two centuries.
Right now, the world grows food sufficient to feed 10B people, but we waste 25% of that food. We only need to improve our growing efficiencies and waste reductions by a small amount each year to meet demand growth through the population peak, and after that it's all down hill to a steady state where most of the world lives in a 'technically advanced state.' - whatever that turns out to be.
As to the tech, I suspect Edward O. Wilson may have the last say...
" We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology."
REF: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7675...
more waste to deal with,
This is technology dependent for both production and reduction of waste.
more pollution.
Again, utterly technology dependent - change the mix of tech, and this changes entirely. The lifespan of any technology has been reducing over time. Give another 30 years, and all the technology we are using now will have been replaced with technology that fundamentally better than what anyone is using today across all the major economic themes (energy, food, transport, medicine, information, etc)
For a long time now, everything has been getting more efficient at about 1% per year (compounding). The amount of fuel required to move a 1960s car 1 mile is a lot more than the amount of fuel required to move a 2020 car 1 mile, and so on and so forth across everything we do.
Planes coming off the assembly line now (without buyers due to COVID) will nearly all be retired in 30 years time - what do you think will replace them? All electric planes running on hydrogen fuel is a reasonable prospect.
And soon we'll be fighting more and more over access to water. That fight has already begun.
This was an interesting notion. I found this site which may be relevant.
REF: https://www.worldwater.org/
They have a conflict map that begins 3000 years bc with a fight between God and Man...
REF (Specifically): http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/map/
The bottomline is that resource wars are nothing new. Humanity has struggled for economic primacy and control over all sorts of stuff (Land, Water, Oil, etc) and frankly, a few more people won't change that.
However, meeting people's needs with improved technology and economic development will bring prosperity and peace - hopefully mitigating some of the seeds of war.
Can you respond to my concerns?
I hope so, but what I've said above almost certainly won't convince you of my argument. So, let me ask you a question: "What is the evidence that would refute your current position on this topic?"
I.e. What would refutation of the idea that 'Overpopulation is an existential problem,' look like to you?
Look, I'm a professional engineer - if someone presents me with a problem, I will naturally look for a solution. I have no interest in perfection, I look for cost-effective workable solutions that can be implemented and will meet the needs of the customer.
For me, Overpopulation doesn't rate as a problem, because fertility reductions ensure it's going away, and all the pre-supposed impacts of 'overpopulation,' are amenable to technical solutions.
The issues we have as a society and a species are rooted in economic, political, and ideological inertia and the constraints of human biology, psychology and sociology.
Total human numbers are almost irrelevant to the actual problems we face.
I don't have statistics and websites and at 1:45 am suffering from insomnia do not feel like doing the research. However, I remember a few years ago seeing pictures of Los Angeles from the 1970s and the late 2000s. The reduction of pollution in the sky was amazing. Aside from whether population had increased or decreased, and I believe the former when it came to LA, Yet, as a society we have altered laws and technology to reduce emissions and pollution from cars to factories. I expect that will continue.While we choose to have less children (compared to our history 1) we live to be older; 2) women are no longer constantly pregnant because of contraceptives, and 3) we don't lose as many children as young ages due to science and vaccines so we don't have to have so many in order for a few to survive to adulthood, and 4) we aren't having children to work the land or the family business), my impression is that there are a lot more problems these days with women getting pregnant and carrying to term. Maybe that is simply what is talked about more, but it led me to the impression that in America the fertility issues have started to be felt.
I am sure someone will point out if I am wrong, but it is my general "gathering" from what I have seen/read over the past couple of decades.
Lizzie wrote: "The reduction of pollution in the sky was amazing. Aside from whether population had increased or decreased, and I believe the former when it came to LA, Yet, as a society we have altered laws and technology to reduce emissions and pollution from cars to factories. I expect that will continue..."Hi Lizzie, yes - the difference is huge.
Air pollution in the developed world has been reducing for decades.
Scout wrote: "Graeme, the statistics you cited are 80 years in the future (2100), with a peak in 2064. I keep trying to see your point of view, but I think we need to curb population way before then. Sure, the e..."Scout,
I am not worried at all. Here is a thought for you. You can take the entire planet's population and stick it in Texas and have the density of New Jersey. Famines nowadays are nothing more than politics by another name. There is more food than can be consumed. It is how to get it from point A to point B and who is going to pay for it.
Pollution is a concern, but it is falling worldwide. The next big revolution I suspect with be biodegradable plastics and that will be a game changer. The most polluted countries are starting to address the concerns with their pollution.
I find it wild everyone thinks the world is coming to an end when there are more trees then in George Washington's time and the air is the cleanest since 1970.
That does not mean there are not problems; they need to be addressed. Yet at the same time, it is not nearly as bad as doomsday predictors would have you believe.
I think the single biggest problem for food in the future is global warming. If the ice sheets melt a very significant fraction of out best agricultural land will be lost and if we wish to preserve what little nature reserves we have left we shall have a problem. Yes, there is a lot of land unused but one reason much is unused at the moment is it is not very fertile. The difficulty with global problems like this, and there are others, is we are not very good at dealing with them if the dealing involves some inconvenience, and worse involves assertions there is no problem. In many cases we cannot get around to agreeing whether there is a probem, and what "information" is real and what is fake.
Overpopulation is a fact and everything ties together. Women need to have control over their fertility whether it reduces the population or not. More people, more pollution. Replacement rate is optimal. Two children per couple. There will always be some who have none or more. I hope the population eventually stabilizes or decreases so the planet can heal from our abuse! Also, it's better for the environment and produces more food for more people to eat a plant based organic diet. It's also healthier and more humane and that's a fact too!
D. wrote: "Overpopulation is a fact and everything ties together. Women need to have control over their fertility whether it reduces the population or not. More people, more pollution. Replacement rate is opt..."In my opinion, to argue something is a fact we need to refer to any verifiable benchmark. What's earth capacity? 5 billion humans, 6, 10 or 12? And there are variables, of course. If we have X arable fertile land, it can feed Y humans. If it shrinks, the Y goes down. Besides, if a small cohort of landlords buy most of it up - billions won't have where to live unless permitted.
Besides, it's not just the number, it's what the humans do. A thousand people throwing plastic into the ocean or 1 industrialist polluting anywhere s/he can or one tanker spilling oil into the sea can be worse to the planet than a few million people diligently recycling and behaving savory towards the planet
How many the planet can support depends on how you want to live, and how much of nature you will leave. There is no fixed number. As you have more people, at first the habitat for wild animals declines, then eventually we start to get new problems from overcrowding like plagues, etc, poor food, and so on. Before asking how many we can support, define how you want to live.
As I've previously argued - trying to cut down on comments - I don't want to live on a planet that's heading where we are heading. I may never get to see (If we can ever travel again) Elephants, Orang Utans , Tree frogs or the thousand of birds I have seen in recent years. I hope that there is still habitat for Mountain Gorillas, polar bears, tigers, lions, rhinos, panda not just giant ones, amongst many many other specieshttps://www.worldwildlife.org/species...
They are not dying out due to their evolution they are dying out due to man's evolution. A few specimens kept in zoos is not enough. They need space, climate and people too many to keep away. I've seen in it Sri Lanka, Costa Rica and most frighteningly Borneo. Human beings cutting down 600 year old hardwood trees for palm plantations claiming planting ten palms has some equivalence. We've hunted multiple species to death already. Now hunting may be reduced (Elephants and Rhinos might disagree) but habit is massively reduced.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/amazon...
Simple too many people already consuming too much using too much land. I hope technology has an answer. Brazil seems to think cattle farms are. The polluters are not keen to switch because they don't want to pay for the change. Humans are greedy and selfish that is not going to change.
Philip wrote: "As I've previously argued - trying to cut down on comments - I don't want to live on a planet that's heading where we are heading. I may never get to see (If we can ever travel again) Elephants, Or..."I agree, Philip. Like they said in The Matrix, humans are a virus. They spread and destroy their host (earth). We have to think long term. People keep encroaching leaving less and less wild land which keeps nature in balance. Rainforests clean the air, yet we keep cutting them down for cattle grazing because people want their hamburgers. I don't eat hamburgers or anything else that comes from animals. Factory farming pollutes, is unhealthy, and is inhumane.
Ian wrote: "...Before asking how many we can support, define how you want to live...."Why go small? I'd suggest William Gates, the Corona Fighter, as the standard :)
I agree with your goal - I too want elephants, rhinos, forests and all. Not sure only that the dry number of people is more important than their actual behavior ..Maybe it's not original, but an idea I thought about. Just as they have credit score in the States and maybe in other countries too, we might provide an ecoscore or nature score and offer stick and carrot in the form of financial and other incentives, depending on individual performance: thus "green" people will have credits, while less caring - would score lower.. The total score would open/close options. Do you think it might change behavioral patterns?
Come come, Nik, Gates, the Corona Fighter, promotes him to superhero status. Surely not :-)
Nik wrote: "I agree with your goal - I too want elephants, rhinos, forests and all. Not sure only that the dry number of people is more important than their actual behavior ..Maybe it's not original, but an i..."
There is a ranking and scoring for countries an even businesses which prompted the carbon trading market where gross polluters buy carbon credits to offset whilst changing nothing. In the same way flyers pay carbon taxes on airline tickets or plant saplings to assuage guilt. As i said the sapling does not replace the 600 year old hardwood in the rain forest. Like fishing area bans the only way to protect the habitat and the associated lifeforms is to keep humans out and unable to develop the land. I fear with sea rise it's too late for polar bears, they fish for seal from sea ice. No sea ice or thin unsupportive ice no bears.
I don't think a credit rating as a green rating would change anything. Actual financial compensation in a person's pocket would. I found it very interesting when those areas on Northern California wanted to enforce not using so many bags, the government or businesses (I don't know which as I don't live there) set in place a fee for bags. I watched my sister immediately switch to providing her own, along with many other people. I imagine if you live there, those dollars and cents add up over the year.Personally, I switched to a heat pump because it was cheaper on my electric bill, giving me enough incentive to get rid of my energy consuming 1970s heater. I replaced my toilets with low water use ones because the county gave me $100 for each one.
When it effects the individual's pockets, we are more likely to make the choice to change.
Lizzie wrote: "I don't think a credit rating as a green rating would change anything. Actual financial compensation in a person's pocket would. I found it very interesting when those areas on Northern California ..."Yes, a greener score should translate into tax credit points, for example. Hybrid cars here enjoyed lower import tax to encourage buyers. We too switched from free plastic bags to 3 cents a piece in supermarkets and I'm sure their usage dropped significantly
In UK incentivesCharges for plastic bags - massive reduction in use
Incentives for low emission and now zero emission cars (no annual car tax) including grants for plug set ups in homes
Solar power tariffs
Home insulation grants
In NZ they more or less banned one-use plastic bags, and the supermarkets gave away sturdy carry-bags. It does mean you have to remember to take them with you, but it works surprisingly well.
Since the coronavirus, our grocery stores won't allow the reuseable bags. I have half dozen and have used them for a while because they are like the old-time paper bags, flat bottom and hold more, without breaking like paper or plastic.Our county got rid of the sorting garbage and separate pick up for recycling. It was too expensive for the county. We can do it if we want and take it ourselves and pay a fee.
We have to pay extra fees to the electric company if we have solar panels.
So, part of the problem is not the consumer but the governments and businesses.
We have recycling, but during the virus lockdown it was not declared "essential" so everything went in the trash. I burned paper (probably not environmentally great according tot eh greenies, but if it went into landfill it would ferment to methane, which is worse) but the rubbish still expanded and I was creating twice as much rubbish.The solar panels really do upset the grid loading because the maximum load occurs when the sun is not shining, but there is a huge reduction in the minimum load. The big generators don't turn off and on easily unless they are hydro. A thermal station takes a long time to heat up or cool down. Even nuclear is much better.
I'm not a doomsday predictor. I'm stating facts. The Amazon is being burned for cropland. Wild animals are being forced to occupy spaces that humans have claimed, and they're being killed. More people equals more trash, more carbon emissions, more climate change. Species are becoming endangered and extinct because of human behavior and encroachment on their habitat. States are fighting over water rights, and that's only going to become more of a problem as population increases. This is all happening because there are too many people. Maintaining the current population is the answer, if we want to keep anything like the earth we know now, which is still a beautiful place. I believe this is true and indisputable.
About ecological disasters, Scout, you might like to read my latest blog post, which should be available through GR :-)
Scout wrote: "I'm not a doomsday predictor. I'm stating facts. The Amazon is being burned for cropland. Wild animals are being forced to occupy spaces that humans have claimed, and they're being killed. More peo..."Concur - just need politicians in all nations to actually do something rather than denying the problem.
Improved wheat offers 30% to 40% better yields."Mr Wesley said the trial plots were "pretty impressive" because the wheats planted deep, germinated with the summer rain moisture.
"The long-coleoptile genetics actually got about a three and a half week head start, on the conventionally planted wheat," Mr Wesley said.
And crop modelling predicts this could mean a 30 to 40 per cent increase in yield, over the older varieties planted shallow."
REF: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/202...
Technology choice matters.
Graeme wrote: "Hi J.J. it's a good point.We're actually due a major pandemic..."
Sadly, accurately predicted! Even Papaphilly would have to admit :)
Nik wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Hi J.J. it's a good point.We're actually due a major pandemic..."
Sadly, accurately predicted! Even Papaphilly would have to admit :)"
I hear my name being taken in vain,,,,, 8^)
Funny thing, I have been watching for years shows saying exactly what Graeme said. I personally never thought we would see another one of these in my lifetime.
We had four major pandemics in the 20th century, it's always been threatening to have another one.This latest one has demonstrated a general lack of preparation across the world to cope with the process. Especially on things like PPE stocks.
Graeme wrote: "[Nov, 2019] However, imagine a city with 10 million people in it where the vast majority (above 90%) of water passing through that city ends up, filtered, cleaned and reused. Imagine the solid wastes passed through 'insect protein farms,' which literally convert shit into protein.Imagine that insect protein passed through chicken, duck, turkey, fish, pig, etc farms to produce palatable protein sources. ..."
Now in motion...
"The frontier of the agriculture industry is about to take a big step closer to going mainstream.
Chicago-based food processing company Archer Daniels Midland ADM +0.3% (ADM) and InnovaFeed, a French firm that makes insect protein for animal feed, plan to begin building what will be the world’s largest insect protein facility in 2021 in the city of Decatur in central Illinois.
The partnership between ADM, a $28 billion giant, and the startup InnovaFeed amounts to a vote of confidence in a nascent industry that could one day play a key role in the global agriculture sector. "
REF: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcar...
Graeme wrote: "Graeme wrote: "[Nov, 2019] However, imagine a city with 10 million people in it where the vast majority (above 90%) of water passing through that city ends up, filtered, cleaned and reused. Imagine..."ADM is a company whose actions should always be viewed with a critical eye. They have a long history.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/adm-su...(
Western Big Ag is a monster business....
China's birth rate continues to plummet."China saw 10.035 million new registered births last year, according to the Ministry of Public Security, down from 11.79 million births in 2019
The new figure does not include the entire population, with total data expected to be released in April by the National Bureau of Statistics"
REF: (SCMP, 3x free articles per month): https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec...
Children of Men anyone? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/
Graeme wrote: "China's birth rate continues to plummet."China saw 10.035 million new registered births last year, according to the Ministry of Public Security, down from 11.79 million births in 2019
The new fi..."
Demographics starting to turn against them.
One of the impacts of the one child policy is a lot of adults with one sibling who believe 1 child is perfectly normal. The country's fertility rate is heading towards 1 (noting that 2.1 is replacement level) ... That won't be the only driver, but its a factor.
It's an Achilles heel for their society.
Graeme wrote: "One of the impacts of the one child policy is a lot of adults with one sibling who believe 1 child is perfectly normal. The country's fertility rate is heading towards 1 (noting that 2.1 is replace..."That is the one factor I think is preventing them from being number one. In 25 years they age out and have too many old to take care of and their society venerates the old.
Yes, Papaphilly - that is a key issue and I'm sure they are acutely aware of it.
I appreciate the irony that comes from the CCP having to look at Japan for an understanding of the long term impacts.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society (other topics)The Children of Men (other topics)
Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Population Bomb (other topics)
An Essay on the Principle of Population (other topics)
More...
No one chooses to spend seven days a week practicing back-breaking slash & burn agriculture with 6 to 8 kids in tow when they have the option of a better job and a better life for themselves and their family.