Overpopulation in 2023

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Population growth is expected to slow after it hits 10 billion.

I think we'll be able to manage in terms of resources, but we'll need to rethink things. A focus on arcologies and multi-use midrises would be ideal. Widespread urban farming(in all it's forms) and reducing food waste would likewise help with improving efficiency

Growth rate has been slowing for decades

https://www.statista.com/chart/28744/world-population-growth-timeline-and-forecast/

 

[Endy0816]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Growth rate has been slowing for decades

https://www.statista.com/chart/28744/world-population-growth-timeline-and-forecast/

 

Yes, that is a better way to say it.

I know this is going against the grain, but just think we'll be 'fine' on a macro level within one to two centuries. Reproductive technologies and ideologies are the wildcards in the picture.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

you can influence the birthrate without also killing people.

As I already stated myself. 
 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

even if that comes as a surprise to you. <…> I know it's complicated, but take my word for it, if it's confusing. 

And this is why I neg repped you. Whatever happened to disagreeing without being disagreeable? Not every post needs to be full of barbs and trolls. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

 

I know this is going against the grain, but just think we'll be 'fine' on a macro level within one to two centuries. Reproductive technologies and ideologies are the wildcards in the picture.

Maybe not a wildcard, but researchers into the big drop in average sperm counts debate if it could also be a factor at some point.  Sorta depends on what extrapolations from that downward curve could be made.  And how your mentioned reproductive technology wildcard is played.  There is an apparent redundancy built into a system of millions of little swimmers.  (as well as that delightful redundancy in the standard method of sharing them)  

 

 

 

[mistermack]

It's probably more to do with the counting than actual numbers. You're sure to get fed up with it, after 300,000,000.

Who can blame them for taking a guess, if you lose count at 100,000,000 ?

[naitche]

Seems to me we could be tackling many of humanities problems much more effectively by ditching the idea of one world governance, or leadership dependency, in favor of a Human Objective, or manifesto.

Simply and unambiguously stated; To strive for mutual benefit and reciprocity to our subjective realities, existence, and environments.

To accept individual responsibility, and enhance the abilities of response collectively, through a personal investment in the Human objective, and recognition of our personal/individual roles in its manifestation.

One world governance can't work. It can't effectively represent the diversity of its subject, to be universally supported or supporting.

Its a false equation. There is no singularity to the objective. It can't be realized except by a process of eliminating subject values

Edited August 30, 2023 by naitche

[iNow]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is an apparent redundancy built into a system of millions of little swimmers.  (as well as that delightful redundancy in the standard method of sharing them) 

I’m not aware of any studies confirming this, but anecdotal feedback strongly suggests those latter redundancies seem to reduce for approximately 18 years after successful parturition. 

25 minutes ago, naitche said:

Simply and unambiguously stated; To strive for mutual benefit and reciprocity to our subjective realities, existence, and environments.

This will still allow a tyranny of the majority to win out, for (while it’s not always zero sum) sometimes benefit to one party must come at the expense of another. 

I liked how swansont said this recently: There is no equality in the choice of what to have for dinner if 3 of those voting are wolves and 1 is a sheep.

Systems must be in place to minimize this and agreements between parties require governance for enforcement.  

[naitche]

On 8/30/2023 at 1:24 PM, iNow said:

I’m not aware of any studies confirming this, but anecdotal feedback strongly suggests those latter redundancies seem to reduce for approximately 18 years after successful parturition. 

This will still allow a tyranny of the majority to win out, for (while it’s not always zero sum) sometimes benefit to one party must come at the expense of another. 

I liked how swansont said this recently: There is no equality in the choice of what to have for dinner if 3 of those voting are wolves and 1 is a sheep.

Systems must be in place to minimize this and agreements between parties require governance for enforcement.  

Agreed. Structures are required to support any purpose. If those we have now are unsuited, we would have the constitution to build more effective, to better serve that purpose.  It does provide a standard of expectation common to elected officials, their constituents, and those they interact with.

Its sets up a robust and endlessly adaptive constituency empowered to combat those tyrannies, in service to the stated objective.

If you doubt the power of constitution, just look at Americas right to bear arms, and the difficulties in ammending or alteration.

There is no consistency in the Human Objective as it is, with none agreed on

Or pedigree breeders fixation on 'purity' of a pedigree.

[naitche]

7 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Or pedigree breeders fixation on 'purity' of a pedigree.

Sorry, this sentence should have been coda to the previous paragraph.

[Chhavi421]

On 8/28/2023 at 10:15 AM, Genady said:

Is the Earth overpopulated?

Yes, the earth is overpopulated, according to the old times, the population is increasing very much and we do not have regular resources for such a large population.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Chhavi421 said:

Yes, the earth is overpopulated, according to the old times, the population is increasing very much and we do not have regular resources for such a large population.

Which resources do we not have enough of?

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

Which resources do we not have enough of?

Common sense?

[mistermack]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Which resources do we not have enough of?

Fresh water, farm land, grain, fish, oil, gas, roads, rail, dairy, rubber, clean air, condoms, . . . .

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Fresh water, farm land, grain, fish, oil, gas, roads, rail, dairy, rubber, clean air, condoms, . . . .

Quote

Today, the world produces 150% more food on only 13% more land compared with 1960, thanks to many innovations in food production made over the years. We produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That's enough to feed 10 billion yet we are at just over 7 billion currently. There is enough for everyone.

https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-15#:~:text=Today%2C the world produces 150,There is enough for everyone.

You'll have to explain why you believe we don't have enough of some of the others. With water for example as far as I can tell we have plenty, it is just that people often live in the wrong place. Not enough dairy for whom? Saudi Arabia and Russia are cutting back on oil production due to too much oil on the market. Are we expected to run out soon? 

[TheVat]

I think the food threat is more from climatic changes and stress to the arable land we do have.  Most foods, no matter how they are genetically enhanced, require regular water and soil nutrients.  What we are losing are the crisis buffers and backups that assure a consistent food supply for all 8-10 billion mouths.   

I recall that was one of Paul Ehrlich's points.  Not that mass Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable, but that we inch closer to that line where everything is a gamble, where escaping famine relies more and more on being lucky and having everything go right and every country that's a big agri producer also will retain the wealth and governmental benevolence to ship massive quantities globally whenever there's a drought or other agricultural failure.

I don't think we need to totally give up dairy and meat, but most people in wealthy nations eat way more than nutrition requires.  

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Fresh water, farm land, grain, fish, oil, gas, roads, rail, dairy, rubber, clean air, condoms, . . . .

Not sure if you've heard...for those with latex allergies (quite common among medical workers) there are alternatives to rubber.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

we inch closer to that line where everything is a gamble, where escaping famine relies more and more on being lucky and having everything go right

Take the airbags, shatterproof glass, seatbelts, and antilock brakes from the car… you might survive the crash… but the odds of survival are far better when those buffers remain. 

Time for better vertical farming and focused hydroponics. 

[TheVat]

Supplemental reading on how we are straining our biosphere.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

The planetary boundaries framework (1, 2) draws upon Earth system science (3). It identifies nine processes that are critical for maintaining the stability and resilience of Earth system as a whole. All are presently heavily perturbed by human activities. The framework aims to delineate and quantify levels of anthropogenic perturbation that, if respected, would allow Earth to remain in a “Holocene-like” interglacial state. In such a state, global environmental functions and life-support systems remain similar to those experienced over the past ~10,000 years rather than changing into a state without analog in human history. This Holocene period, which began with the end of the last ice age and during which agriculture and modern civilizations evolved, was characterized by relatively stable and warm planetary conditions. Human activities have now brought Earth outside of the Holocene’s window of environmental variability, giving rise to the proposed Anthropocene epoch (4, 5).

Planetary-scale environmental forcing by humans continues and individual Earth system components are, to an increasing extent, in disequilibrium in relation to the changing conditions. As a consequence, the post-Holocene Earth is still evolving, and ultimate global environmental conditions remain uncertain. ....

Summary, with less technical terminology....

https://apnews.com/article/earth-climate-change-biodiversity-environment-pollution-c8582c3ae0344b5a88cc38cd8e725702

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:49 AM, mistermack said:

Well I think it most certainly is . But if you think the only important species is humans, then maybe it's not. 

Maybe I'm odd, but I value other species, and hate to see animals like Gorillas reduced to a few thousand, while we are nearly 8 billion. 

Agree. But at the same time I wouldn't trade a human life for one (Putin et ilk notwithstanding).

I realize that's contradictory (not the Putin et al part), but there ya go...

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. But at the same time I wouldn't trade a human life for one (Putin et ilk notwithstanding).

I realize that's contradictory (not the Putin et al part), but there ya go...

But when I'm talking about population levels and targets etc I'm not discussing killing people to reduce the total, I'm talking about measures to reduce birth rates. 

When you put it like "trading a human life for one" you are mis-representing the entire argument, or talking about something entirely different.

But if you want to go to that extreme, then killing 9,000 innocent Palestinians is ok by the governments of the world, in order to kill a few Hamas fighters. Human life isn't so precious to the people we elect, when it comes to tribal matters. 

Or in the US, human life isn't sacred enough to necessitate a free health service. Rich human lives are more important than poor ones. And for people convicted of a capital crime, their lives don't count at all, even though there's a very real possibility that they are innocent. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But when I'm talking about population levels and targets etc I'm not discussing killing people to reduce the total, I'm talking about measures to reduce birth rates. 

When you put it like "trading a human life for one" you are mis-representing the entire argument, or talking about something entirely different.

But if you want to go to that extreme, then killing 9,000 innocent Palestinians is ok by the governments of the world, in order to kill a few Hamas fighters. Human life isn't so precious to the people we elect, when it comes to tribal matters. 

Or in the US, human life isn't sacred enough to necessitate a free health service. Rich human lives are more important than poor ones. And for people convicted of a capital crime, their lives don't count at all, even though there's a very real possibility that they are innocent. 

Sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I rather agree with you. I was surprised your post had gotten a neg rep and +1ed it. (went back to 0 with my +1)

I then just added my bit. I can see how it might have seemed directed at you but that wasn't intended.

[mistermack]

I was just arguing in the abstract. 

In strictly theoretical terms, I would trade a human life for an animal, in some circumstances. (not mine though).

If the animal was one of the last ten Rhinos on the planet, and the human was a serial killer, (and I was fully convinced of his guilt) I would choose the Rhino every time. Actually, if the human was a serial burglar, I'd still choose the Rhino to survive. Or shoplifter. Or graffiti sprayer.

I wouldn't go as far as Hitler did though. 

[Alysdexic]

Overpopulation is to the world's detriment, but subsequent overfishing, factory farming, adulterants, poaching, pollution (such as from fertilizers and pesticides applied to GMOs rather than the GMOs themselves), and loss of habitats are the true problems. (Industrial farming can stop when overpopulation stops, but most of the world are stvpid and easily replaced by robots, thus overpopulated.)

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Alysdexic said:

(Industrial farming can stop when overpopulation stops

It will never stop. Industrial farming is generally about labour costs. In a competitive market, people buy on price, and industrial methods keep overall costs down. I guess the price of land comes into it though. If you can produce more out of a smaller plot, then you can make more money and compete better on price. 

But when "overpopulation stops", industrial farming will have even more of an edge, because labour costs will be higher with a smaller population.  

[ralfy]

You may consider ecological footprint per capita vs. biocapacity per capita. There's criticism about biocapacity but they imply that it underestimates resource availability.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

Meanwhile you've got this guy who wants everyone to pop out more people
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-demographics-population-ageing-2021-12?op=1