If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..

[Graeme]

J. wrote: "I appreciate the irony that comes from the CCP having to look at Japan for an understanding of the long term impacts."

A lot of us are looking at Japan.

[J.]

True, but the Rape of Nanking probably has more bite in China.

[Graeme]

Some interesting charts here.

"Play along with me while we consider the ultimate barometers of economic wellbeing that are fertility rates and births across the developed world, China, and the RoW (rest of the world). How fertility rates have freefallen to predominantly negative rates. How the developed nations fertility rates turned negative first, then China, then most the RoW (& soon nearly the entire world).

A quick perusal of the chart of global fertility rates, by income groups below, shows a sharp and sustained drop in global fertility since 1970. It is well understood how (and why) China did this...less well understood how (and why) the developed world got there first and has sustained it for decades."

REF: https://econimica.blogspot.com/2021/0...

1970 was around the peak of the overpopulation scare, and it seems to me that it is often the case that 'public scares,' peak in the media at the very point of inflection where what ever trend was driving the scare turns in the opposite direction.

People have been focussing on gross population numbers and not on the key driver - fertility rates.

[Scout]

I see the earth as finite in its carrying capacity. So a yearly growth in the number of people it has to support is what concerns me.

[Nik]

The carrying capacity may become seriously undermined, when much of it will belong to a very few hands

[Papaphilly]

I am not worried at all. We will never get to the carrying capacity. the Earth can easily handle 25 billion. As a matter of fact, within 100 years, there will be a population worry about having enough people.

[Nik]

Papaphilly wrote: "I am not worried at all. We will never get to the carrying capacity. the Earth can easily handle 25 billion. As a matter of fact, within 100 years, there will be a population worry about having eno..."

Your both estimates may be true. The current problem is that maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the existing population starves/is hungry

[Papaphilly]

Nik wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "I am not worried at all. We will never get to the carrying capacity. the Earth can easily handle 25 billion. As a matter of fact, within 100 years, there will be a population wor..."

Without getting into the bigger issue or trying to be a smart ass, hunger in the world is nothing more than politics by another name. The world could be fed on what is wasted everyday without a problem.

[Graeme]

We currently produce food for 10 billion people.

People starve because they are poor - not because of insufficient food.

[Scout]

When speaking of carrying capacity, one has to consider the quality of life of the inhabitants. The average cruise ship can accommodate 3,000 passengers comfortably, but its carrying capacity, logically, is much larger. Would you want to take a cruise on a ship that's carrying all the passengers it can hold? I see Earth the same way. Its carrying capacity may be huge, but what would the quality of life be like if that capacity were reached? I know I'm talking to myself here, as we've had this discussion many times. Actual population numbers grow each year, producing more trash, using more natural resources, destroying habitat, taking more and more from the earth, our only home.

[Nik]

Agree with both Papa and Graeme. As of comfort or quality of life a cruise ship is an interesting model to theorize. It consists of upper decks/lower decks, luxury suites/regular etc... The higher the standard/the comfort/the quality, the less space it leaves for inferior decks. I argue no one needs to be thrown off board, especially not to make room for luxury. It's when basic is sorted the game for higher and higher level even to extreme luxury should start. The capacity is being expanded by modern techs. The progress in general wellbeing, mostly in the West, is obvious, but I do believe the capabilities to overcome starvation as a phenomenon exist and it's politics, indifference and else that stand in the way. No need to downgrade the quality of life for that, if that would be our current worry :)
We currently deal with an ecologic disaster, caused by a tanker that dumped its oil some distance off the shore. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/22/mi... As a result - all the beaches are closed, covered by oil, thousands of mammals, birds, fish are dead and so on. One ship caused more damage than millions of people could.

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "When speaking of carrying capacity, one has to consider the quality of life of the inhabitants. The average cruise ship can accommodate 3,000 passengers comfortably, but its carrying capacity, logi..."

to give you an idea of how much carrying capacity this world actually has, you can take the population of the entire world and put it all into the state of Texas and have the density of New Jersey. Oh by the way, New Jersey is still about 1/2 farmland.

[Scout]

I saw that on the news today and thought about you, Nik. It reminds me of the oil spill we had in the Gulf and the volunteers who bathed sea birds with Dawn dish soap to save them. So sad this happened to your country.

And I guess I've had my say for a while about the impact of increasing population as regards the resulting trash produced, increased demand on the power grid, deforestation of rain forests, impact on wildlife, and irreplaceable resources consumed.

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "And I guess I've had my say for a while about the impact of increasing population as regards the resulting trash produced, increased demand on the power grid, deforestation of rain forests, impact on wildlife, and irreplaceable resources consumed. ..."

And yet the politicians can still fight with each other.

[Philip]

https://www.worlddata.info/life-expec...

[Graeme]

Philip wrote: "https://www.worlddata.info/life-expec..."

Economic development is a key driver for longevity.

[Graeme]

Watch and learn how the last 2 centuries of progress has massively improved the human condition.

QUOTE: "At the dawn of the 19th century, global life expectancy was only 28.5 years."

Note the impact of Marxist experiments in Russia and China and the famines that followed...

REF: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/glob...

[J.]

Graeme wrote: "Watch and learn how the last 2 centuries of progress has massively improved the human condition.

QUOTE: "At the dawn of the 19th century, global life expectancy was only 28.5 years."

Note the imp..."

Life expectancy is a bit of a whitewash. As a mean number, it homogenizes all facets of death and leaves many with a sense that for most of human history thirty was an old age. The truth was far more horrific. If you lived to adulthood, odds were that you would live a similar length of time as modern people, give or take a decade. What killed the average was the nightmarishly high infant mortality rate. Before the modern era of effective medicine and relatively solid food security EVERY parent buried children (plural). To get a full sense of it go to a 18th century cemetery and count the headstones of children.

[Graeme]

Well said, J.

[Scout]

Every time I think I can walk away from this thread, I just can't, Graeme.

"Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.8 billion in 2020. It is expected to keep growing, and estimates have put the total population at 8.6 billion by mid-2030, 9.8 billion by mid-2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100."

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

You change the subject when I bring this up and don't address population growth as regards the resulting trash produced, increased demand on the power grid, deforestation and decimation of rain forests, impact on wildlife, pollution, and irreplaceable resources consumed, as well as quality of life.

Do you have a considered response to these concerns?

[Graeme]

Scout wrote: "Every time I think I can walk away from this thread, I just can't, Graeme.

"Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown..."

Sure. See below.

[Graeme]

Let's break it down, and I love your willingness to engage on this topic, despite our different perspectives - I have a very strong respect for where you are coming from on this topic.

Scout wrote,

"You change the subject when I bring this up and don't address population growth as regards", ...


[1] "the resulting trash produced,"

Personally, I'm all for recycling. And I believe it is important that we close the loop on as many of our industrial processes as possible such that inputs are drawn from outputs as much as is technically and financially feasible to do so.

Yes, we live on a finite planet and we only have one (today) - that is a foundational premise of my thinking.

[2] "increased demand on the power grid,"

We have abundant electricity (as opposed to liquid fuels (that's another issue) at our finger tips. A serious investment in (let's call it 3rd gen++) and genuine 4th generation nuclear power solves many problems all at once. But the cartels invested in Wind/Solar renewables stand in the way of deploying (available, and/or at prototype/pre-production phase (i.e. 3 to 8 years from now) technology that would provide safe, reliable, cost-effective, very-low environmental foot print electricity production systems that do not slaughter bats and birds, and which work 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and 365 days per year.

Seriously: The US could have it's first 4th gen nuclear reactor running of spent fuel (from earlier reactors), consuming weapons grade material as fuel, no dead bats, no dead birds, no mining for new fuel, no CO2 emissions, with a plant that would run for 80 years, outliving 3x full ($$$) rebuilds of any solar or wind farm in existence, and it can't melt down like Chernobyl or 3 Mile island or Fukishima...

The barrier = policy - not technical.

[3] "deforestation and decimation of rain forests,"

The biggest factors impacting the rainforests (Borneo, Amazon) are driven by first world policies. Consider the following.

[3.a.] The EU in a fit of blatant environmental stupidity decrees that 'biofuels,' must be used to run EU vehicles. The end result, the EU creates a market for palm oil. Indonesia responds to the EU market signal by raping the rainforest of Borneo to plant palm oil plantations to meet the 'lets save the world,' policy emanating from the EU.

[3.b.] Of course, this was never about saving the environment. There was an opportunity for EU corporations to make money from biofuels, they just needed a government mandated market (classic private interest corporate co-option of state machinery) to stiff the local drivers with rubbish fuel made from recycled rainforests while virtue signalling to the masses - the Orangutans be damned.

[3.c] Slash & Burn agriculture is the economically weakest form of agriculture condemning those who perform it to a (shortish) lifetime of brutal labour and subsistence living you wouldn't wish on someone you hated with a passion. It occurs because first world agriculture (Big-Ag) literally lobbies to support efforts to keep Brazil agriculture in the dark ages. Heaven forbid if Brazilians and others living on the border of the Amazon should actually use the economically effective, resource efficient, low environmental footprint techniques of modern agriculture - then they would be able to flood first world markets with cheap high quality agriculture goods undermining first world corporate profits while preserving the Amazon.

And now we can't have that can we...

To save the rainforests - empower the poor to grow their food the way we do. First world agribusiness be damned. The rainforests are at risk from first world greed - not over-population.

[4] "impact on wildlife,"

See answer for section [3] above. A functional local economy provides the wherewithal to enable the preservation of habitat.

[5] "pollution, and"

Define pollution... this tends to be very dependent on technology used. Do you remember when LA was smog bound, and then catalytic converters became common place and the smog became a thing of the past?

[6] "irreplaceable resources consumed,"

Substitution is king. Whale oil was irreplaceable until we went to hydrocarbon oil.

[7] "as well as quality of life."

Best served by adroit use of technology to supply cheap, reliable electricity (4th gen nuke) followed by economic development eliminating inefficient use of resources resulting in high quality lifestyles with low environmental footprints.

It's simple really - but the greed of established elites riding on top of established systems get in the way of effective decision making.

[Lizzie]

Graeme wrote: ",,,1970 was around the peak of the overpopulation scare, and it seems to me that it is often the case that 'public scares,' peak in the media at the very point of inflection where what ever trend was driving the scare turns in the opposite direction..."

In America, the 70s was a time of huge change for the American family. Birth control became available to married women without their husband's permission along with the pill for married and unmarried women. Colleges, especially Ivy League ones, were forced to increase their acceptance of female students. Women were expected to have a career rather than just be mom, wife, homemaker. By the end of the 70s, divorce became "no contest" making it much easier to end a marriage regardless of who did what.

Did infertility rates really go up or did lifestyles change so much that traded in our most fertile years in an attempt to be better educated, upward career mobility, and make more money?

[Graeme]

Hi Lizzie, it sounds like a real factor to me. Once women are empowered, the fertility rate drops as most women do not choose to have large families.

The $10K USD per capita GDP is an indicator for when parents begin to opt for fewer children and have the means to access birth control.

[Papaphilly]

The fertility rate can be directly tied to education. The better the education for women in particular, the rate goes down. This also ties to economics.

[Nik]

The fertility is very uneven. In some "dying" countries governments incentivize birth by substantial amounts for every newborn, in other countries vice versa - governments attempt to curb birth, and yet in some others - it's baby boom all around

[Susan]

Graeme wrote: "Hi J.J. it's a good point.

We're actually due a major pandemic..."

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head with this comment. Just scrolling through a few discussions when I saw this,and had to comment: Spot on!

[Scout]

Do you see a correlation between overpopulation and pandemics?

[Graeme]

Susan wrote: "Boy, did you hit the nail on the head with this comment. Just scrolling through a few discussions when I saw this,and had to comment: Spot on!..."

Thanks Susan, I had my crystal ball polished that day.

[Graeme]

Scout wrote: "Do you see a correlation between overpopulation and pandemics?"

Pandemics has been with us effectively for ever, but if you were living in a hunter-gatherer tribe 20,000 years ago, and someone got sick with something - it would (could) whip through the tribe, but may well have burned itself out before it got transmitted to someone outside the tribe.

The development of agriculture, living in cities, barnyards where people were living next to their animals created a permanent petri-dish for viruses and microbes.

The last 10,000 years or so, have been an arms race between our immune systems and infective agents.

I think it's clear that increased numbers of people give viruses and microbes more warm bodies to infect, but is population an important consideration? Is it as important as 'public sanitation and personal hygiene practices,' and other factors?

There have been massive and prolonged pandemics in the past, for example the bubonic plague killed 200M people over 5 years.

REF (Visual History): https://www.visualcapitalist.com/hist...

Innovations around public hygiene (Sewerage systems) have been important drivers for improving health outcomes and longevity for the human population, and hence population - I.e. our attempts to combat infections and improve our quality of life are direct players in reducing the death rate and hence impacts the population level (increase). Of course for modern societies, that primarily means increasing the average age of the population rather than total numbers due to our very low and falling fertility rates.

Contrawise, the development of mass air travel now means that a virus can be in Beijing one day, and London and New York on the next... so innovation sometimes works for the viruses to.

I do not see the arms race going away anytime soon.

[Scout]

Graeme wrote: "Let's break it down, and I love your willingness to engage on this topic, despite our different perspectives - I have a very strong respect for where you are coming from on this topic.

Scout wrote..."

Thanks for your considered reply, Graeme. I know you spent a lot of time crafting it, and I appreciate that, as well as your ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. That's a rare thing these days. It's great to know you, and I will come back when I have a little more time to digest this info.

[Graeme]

Scout wrote: "Thanks for your considered reply, Graeme. ..."

Cheers, Scout.

[Scout]

Graeme, regarding your post 333: [1] Recycling would be great, only it's not being done effectively. I think I mentioned before that someone in our town posted a video of the recycling truck going to the dump. Let's hope things improve in this area.
[2] 4th gen nuclear reactors sound like a solution to the power problem.
[3] Deforestation sounds like a political problem. I'd ask, though, if it would be necessary if there weren't more demand on resources due to increasing population.
[4] Impact on wildlife, I'd say, increases as the population increases and necessitates new structures to be built on wildlife habitats. Every time I see a new encounter between people and wild animals, I think, "Well, they were here first. They're just trying to survive." Fewer people = less encroachment on their habitats.
[5] Pollution is not just about greenhouse gasses (which, logically, will increase as the population increases.) It's also about pollution of rivers and the earth itself as more chemicals are needed to produce food for an ever-growing population. Larger population = more chemicals needed to produce food efficiently.
[6] Regarding irreplaceable resources consumed -Really? Whale oil? Ian has talked about resources needed for technology, which are finite. The supply of water on earth is finite. I've read that water wars are coming; in my state, there's been an ongoing battle for water rights between Georgia (industrial needs of Atlanta, et. al.) and Florida (their need for water to support their oyster industry). Growing populations only exacerbate these problems. If "substitution is king," what do we substitute for water?
[7] Quality of life is utmost. We might be able to feed more people using modern technology, but what are we losing? Honeybees decimated by pesticides on crops. We all know that pollination depends on them. More people = more crops = more pesticides = more damage to the environment. It's not just bees, but all insects that are in decline. Do we even care that, due to encroachment on their environment, wild animals are being driven to raid garbage cans and swim in pools? A wild area adjacent to my neighborhood was home to opossums, hawks, and deer, and those are just the ones we know about. It was clear-cut, the habitat destroyed to build apartments. I had read that trees aren't that important to producing oxygen, but I've recently seen studies proving that trees are a vital part of consuming carbon and producing oxygen for our planet. More people = more trees cut down = less oxygen produced. An ecosystem consists of organisms in which each has a part to play. We're disrupting that system by acting as if we're the only ones that matter. Mother nature isn't happy, and neither am I.

[Graeme]

Good news: Humanity has come a long way in ridding the world of the scourge of famine.

QUOTE: "Compared to earlier historical periods, very few people have died in famines in recent decades."

Interestingly, the 1970s scare on 'overpopulation,' saw the next four decades with the least amount of famine within the last 150 years.



And more broadly.

REF: https://ourworldindata.org/famines

[Graeme]

The shift to seafood agriculture is soaking up all the new demand for seafood - helping to protect wild stocks.*

QUOTE: "Global production of fish and seafood has quadrupled over the past 50 years. Not only has the world population more than doubled over this period, the average person now eats almost twice as much seafood as half a century ago."

Seafood production: wild fish catch vs aquaculture, World, 1960 to 2015

More broadly.

REF: https://ourworldindata.org/fish#the-w...

*Noting that wild stocks are still at risk.

[Nik]

Good news, nourished people arguably make better humans

[Graeme]

Nik wrote: "Good news, nourished people arguably make better humans"

Indeed.

[Graeme]

QUOTE: "Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom."

REF (NYT): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/wo...

The fertility bust goes mainstream.

[Scout]

I never said that decreasing the population would be good; but maintaining what we have would be a goal.

[Graeme]

Scout wrote: "I never said that decreasing the population would be good; but maintaining what we have would be a goal."

I don't see that happening, it will go up, and then come down - sooner and faster than expected.

My key thesis (agree with it or not - it's all ok - it's just a discussion) is that fertility is dropping faster than expected and that population levels will 'undershoot,' expectations and as a society we are not equipped for a world where the average age is 50+ and there are too few people working to produce goods and services for all the old (retired) people to consume...

As to what that all means the closest prediction is Japan.

[Graeme]

Now China....

Quote: "China will allow all couples to have a third child, a surprise move aimed at slowing the nation’s declining birthrate as risks to the economy’s long-term prospects mount because of a rapidly aging population.

In a meeting presided over by President Xi Jinping Monday, the Communist Party’s Politburo decided to ease the current two-child restriction, saying “allowing every couple to have three children and implementing related support policies will help improve the population’s structure,” according to a report by the official Xinhua News Agency. It wasn’t clear when the move would take effect, although the meeting discussed major policy measures to be implemented in the period to 2025."

REF: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...

[Graeme]

I'm with you Scout.

I read by Paul Ehrlich in my teenage years, and in my twenties (1980s) I was sure that we'd see widespread famine due to overpopulation by the year 2000.

Of course, nothing like that happened. But the overpopulation scare was a real phenomenon. It all seemed so plausible, and yet .... nothing.

Now in 2021 - the most populous country in the world, China, has become 'officially,' worried about their declining fertility.

Go figure, 'eh?

[Scout]

I saw that about China, too, and thought of you. I'm thinking that they're wanting to increase birth rates to maintain population, not increase it. If that's the case, I'm all for it. What I don't see as a good thing is increasing population. Why would we want to do that to ourselves and the planet?

[Graeme]

To maintain a youthful pop'n.

They are aging very quickly.

[Philip]

Don't worry about China - Africa and Indonesia will be big population growth areas. The fertility changes Graeme has exampled lag population growth driven by a culture of multiple children for decades before education (and contraception) take over.

Nigeria example https://www.macrotrends.net/countries...
Indonesia's population has doubled in 25 years

Then we have welcome improvements in health care meaning death rate plunges thus expanding population of older or increasing birth rate further before decline kicks in.

So fertility may eventually rescue effects of population growth although countries efforts to promote fertility may change that outcome e.g. China goes from 1 to 3 children or other countries with incentives for births.

In the meantime average lifespan increases dramatically due to medical advances we all want -e.g. eliminate Malaria (400,000 dead per year) . Water, food, aged healthcare.

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

Some very interesting numbers shown in link - sort columns by % change since year 2000. That has multiple countries with >10%. Only 2 out of 183 had reduced lifespan and these were less than <0.5 %

Hoping fertility will limit World's population growth is only part of the answer and I do not see it stopping only slowing increase but life expectancy I suspect will easily outweigh that slow down.

[Nik]

This dude attempted to fight a decline in fertility singlehandedly, leaving behind 38 wives, 89 kids and a modest number of grandchildren: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-i...
RIP

[J.]

Nik wrote: "This dude attempted to fight a decline in fertility singlehandedly, leaving behind 38 wives, 89 kids and a modest number of grandchildren: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-i...
RIP"

He could almost be a Mormon.

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "I saw that about China, too, and thought of you. I'm thinking that they're wanting to increase birth rates to maintain population, not increase it. If that's the case, I'm all for it. What I don't ..."

China's problem is not people numbers but a demographic issue. The old are fast growing and the young are going to be outnumbered within 20 years. It is going to set off a dramatic catastrophe that China will not be able to cope with well. The demographics are not going to change for them within the next 75 years. On top of that, the men outnumber the women due to birth restrictions and preferences for males. This is going to be very interesting to watch China.

[Philip]

Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "I saw that about China, too, and thought of you. I'm thinking that they're wanting to increase birth rates to maintain population, not increase it. If that's the case, I'm all for it...."

Not just China but other nations where a male child is valued more than a female one.

The demographics issues are already affecting multiple countries with ageing populations including Japan for example and even causing additional deaths in COVID. Ageing does not mean healthy....

China is the sort of place where other rules from Science Fiction could come into place. They have enforced sterilisation, they had one child, how about euthanasia? - Perhaps not Logan's Run but...

This can be implemented quietly e.g. DNR in hospitals for anyone over the age of 90/80/70? Pick a number. People will be scared to go to hospital thus also increasing the death rate at home.

[Scout]

Now, that's scary. Doing away with old people by letting them die in hospital. We are, after all, a drag on the economy. We've contributed to SS, Medicare, retirement funds. Do away with us, and that money is freed up. Could going to the hospital eventually be dangerous?