Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 134739 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1732
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #500 on: April 25, 2019, 12:49:44 AM »
What about the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Will that affect China and then India in the future?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #501 on: April 25, 2019, 01:44:01 AM »
What about the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Will that affect China and then India in the future?
The Kuznets curve is a model, so by definition it will have no effect.
And that is leaving aside the considerable doubts that the phenomenon it purports to describes is valid.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #502 on: April 25, 2019, 03:01:15 AM »
The calculation figures the probability that each offspring may also reproduce — potentially expanding an individual's carbon footprint for decades after they die.

Then it should also figure the probability that each of those offsprings's children will also reproduce...ad infinitum, so that the carbon contribution of having a child is millions of times greater than not having a child.

that thought goes into the right direction, no further details would be TLTR but
procreation for the sake of procreation is animalic and soonder or later procreation
will be done with meaningful purpose and wisdom while the current majority will
protest to see there "human" in fact "animalic" rights taken from them.

one fact ist that the lower the level of a creature the higher the procreation rate is.
i don't dare to giving this fact a ultimate value but of course have an opition on the matte ;)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15940
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #503 on: June 12, 2019, 08:46:51 PM »
Ocean Preservation Society board member Leilani Munter describes her choice to go childless.
5-minute video, spoken English with French subtitles.
Quote
Brut nature FR (@brutnaturefr) 6/10/19, 2:22 PM
"J'ai décidé de ne pas d'avoir d'enfant pour préserver le futur de notre planète."

Ce choix, @LeilaniMunter l'a fait il y a 25 ans. Aujourd'hui, face aux crises environnementales, elle est plus que jamais convaincue d'avoir pris la bonne décision.
https://twitter.com/brutnaturefr/status/1138149519307280384
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #504 on: June 18, 2019, 03:21:21 PM »
UN confirms population growth in its latest report.
We will be 9.7 billion people on Earth in 2050.
This is fairly well locked in, see the green 2 st.dev. bands in figure.
And by 2100 we will be 10.9 billion people.
Thus, previous estimates a couple of years ago were more or less correct.

The population growth in the nearest decades will be pretty devastating for the climate, yes those new billions will be in developing countries, but they will all want to Consume. And Consume They Will.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #505 on: June 18, 2019, 03:31:44 PM »
UN confirms population growth in its latest report.
We will be 9.7 billion people on Earth in 2050.
This is fairly well locked in, see the green 2 st.dev. bands in figure.
And by 2100 we will be 10.9 billion people.
Thus, previous estimates a couple of years ago were more or less correct.

The population growth in the nearest decades will be pretty devastating for the climate, yes those new billions will be in developing countries, but they will all want to Consume. And Consume They Will.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf

These numbers are total nonsense, as bad or worse as IPC, we could easily lose 2 billion by 2050 instead of gaining, all we need is a BOE (which is a lock by then) and someone with an itchy trigger finger. I would be shocked if India and Pakistan are still functioning countries in 33 years when they are running out of water as we speak.

A BOE followed by nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent is actually a pretty optimistic scenario for controlling growth (IMO). The fallout would be fairly limited and would only affect the most populated regions of the planet in a severe manner (i.e. China and India), while the ensuing food shortages etc would trim off another billion or so. I think it is actually one of the only scenarios that allows business as usual to continue for the developed world, maybe with some reductions in standards of living, as the global population is brought back to 4.5 billion or so, which is a number that is actually manageable.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1732
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #506 on: June 18, 2019, 10:44:48 PM »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1757
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 745
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #507 on: June 21, 2019, 05:58:49 PM »
Elon Musk Doubled Down On His Theory That World Population is Headed for Collapse
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-reiterates-global-population-is-headed-for-collapse-2019-6

In a tweet on Friday, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO doubled down on a theory he has backed in the past — the human population is headed for implosion.

Responding to a tweet, which projected the global population to grow by roughly 1.6 billion by 2050, Musk said the real problem facing humanity is an "aging and declining world population."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1141977875567919104

Musk cited Jørgen Randers, a Norwegian academic who in his 2012 book "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" said the human population would start dwindling around 2040.

..............

I don't think you'll have to wait that long.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Pragma

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #508 on: June 21, 2019, 07:40:14 PM »

I don't think you'll have to wait that long.

I had an epiphany about 40 years ago that things could not continue, but we seem to be still levitating, so what do I know? When do we have our Wile E. Coyote moment?


The Club of Rome and their Limits to Growth seem to have it sorted out pretty well, so far

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1732
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 67
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #510 on: July 24, 2019, 06:49:49 PM »
We must stop population growth:
https://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/news/population-growth-a-threat-to-planetary-health-29686026
Blaming too many poor black and brown people for the sins of the wealthy white elite.


If we could just sterilize "them", we could fly our private jets about without facing the condemnation of our peers.
Terry

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #511 on: July 24, 2019, 06:52:33 PM »
We must stop population growth:
https://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/news/population-growth-a-threat-to-planetary-health-29686026
Blaming too many poor black and brown people for the sins of the wealthy white elite.


If we could just sterilize "them", we could fly our private jets about without facing the condemnation of our peers.
Terry
Yes, all the white elite's fault, because without the white elite, they would still be dying of malaria and cholera and typhoid. What the f***? If you want to get racist this is not the thread.

Bill Gates has saved untold millions of people due to his efforts, and without the "white elite" the Third World would be an even worse sh*thole than it already is.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #512 on: July 24, 2019, 07:06:35 PM »
We must stop population growth:
https://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/news/population-growth-a-threat-to-planetary-health-29686026
Blaming too many poor black and brown people for the sins of the wealthy white elite.


If we could just sterilize "them", we could fly our private jets about without facing the condemnation of our peers.
Terry
Yes, all the white elite's fault, because without the white elite, they would still be dying of malaria and cholera and typhoid. What the f***? If you want to get racist this is not the thread.

Bill Gates has saved untold millions of people due to his efforts, and without the "white elite" the Third World would be an even worse sh*thole than it already is.


Which thread would you prefer?
Terry

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #513 on: July 24, 2019, 07:13:41 PM »
How to manage population growth:
- Support female education and employment
- Support access to family planning. If you're in the USA, this means supporting the dems... because the practical impact of the republican party's mexico city policy blocking all US gvt funds to anyone who has anything to do with abortion means that most organisations providing any kind of family planning don't qualify. Which, paradoxically, not only leads to more babies but often also to more abortions, since that's what happens if you cut your funding to people providing contraception.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #514 on: July 25, 2019, 12:16:27 AM »
How to manage population growth:

- Go knock on the door of one of your heterosexual neighbors of childbearing age
- Ask them if they are planning to have unprotected sex anytime in the future
- Ask them to please be sure that male puts a rubber thingy on his willie
- Go to the hospital to treat your broken nose

:D

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #515 on: July 25, 2019, 12:18:45 AM »
How to manage population growth:

1) Wait til 2025
2) India runs out of water in many major cities
3) India and Pakistan have a nuclear exchange immediately killing 100,000,000
4) Ensuing firestorms and nuclear winter devastate the Indian subcontinent and much of the developing world resulting in destabilized supply chains and an additional 2,000,000,000 deaths in the subcontinent and elsewhere
5) Collapse of governments etc in the developing world leave another 1,000,000,000 dead in the next few years
6) Global population stabilizes around 4,000,000,000 by 2030-2035.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15940
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #516 on: August 09, 2019, 10:17:21 PM »
Kids: Seen here not so much as the “enemy” but rather the “victims.”

9 People On The Ethics Of Having Kids In An Era Of Climate Crisis
Quote
At the start of July, HuffPost covered a rising grassroots movement of people who are questioning the ethics of having kids in a rapidly warming world, where global leaders seem united only in inaction. Since that article was published, the world has struggled through the hottest month ever recorded, the Arctic has been gripped by hundreds of unprecedented and devastating wildfires, and Greenland’s icebergs have experienced a “major melt event,” sending billions of tons of water flowing into the ocean.

We have also been overwhelmed with responses from readers telling us their stories about kids and climate change.

They’ve told us how they shelved plans to have children and how that caused family rifts. Some even had their fears dismissed by therapists. We heard from a number of older people who said they had seen the environmental crisis coming in the 1970s and ’80s and had decided not to have children or to stop at one. We heard from those who have adopted kids because they did not want to add more people to the planet.

Some responses were uplifting, many were heartbreaking, all were searingly honest. Here’s what they told us. ...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-having-kids-children_n_5d493eaee4b0244052e09033
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Villabolo

  • New ice
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
    • Global Warming Basics
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #517 on: August 10, 2019, 11:36:56 PM »
Kids: Seen here not so much as the “enemy” but rather the “victims.”

9 People On The Ethics Of Having Kids In An Era Of Climate Crisis
Quote
At the start of July, HuffPost covered a rising grassroots movement of people who are questioning the ethics of having kids in a rapidly warming world, where global leaders seem united only in inaction. Since that article was published, the world has struggled through the hottest month ever recorded, the Arctic has been gripped by hundreds of unprecedented and devastating wildfires, and Greenland’s icebergs have experienced a “major melt event,” sending billions of tons of water flowing into the ocean.

We have also been overwhelmed with responses from readers telling us their stories about kids and climate change.

They’ve told us how they shelved plans to have children and how that caused family rifts. Some even had their fears dismissed by therapists. We heard from a number of older people who said they had seen the environmental crisis coming in the 1970s and ’80s and had decided not to have children or to stop at one. We heard from those who have adopted kids because they did not want to add more people to the planet.

Some responses were uplifting, many were heartbreaking, all were searingly honest. Here’s what they told us. ...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-having-kids-children_n_5d493eaee4b0244052e09033

No children?! The exact opposite! You can rear them to be dedicated environmentalists. It only takes two to compensate for the mortality of the parents.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 915
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #518 on: August 11, 2019, 12:12:17 AM »
I do love my two children with all my heart, but I believe that at this point in time humanity should be adopting a global one-child policy for the next 20 years, sharply lowering the overshoot beyond the planet's carrying capacity, and releasing vast (physical and human) resources needed for child rearing, directing them towards the actions needed for lowering humanity's environmental footprint. Renewables, EVs, sustainable farming, reforestation, relocation of coastal infrastructure, and much more.
This would reduce total annual births from 130 million to ~50 million, and by 2050 would reduce population by 2.5 billion compated to current forecasts, giving a chance to avoid catastrophic civilizational collapse.
Obviously, this will not happen. But if planet Earth was a simulation game played by a single entity, this would be the only way to win. Of course, starting in the 1970s would have enabled much better and more enjoyable solutions.
I sure am glad a certain Chinese read Limits to Growth and managed to change his country's dempgraphic trajectory, back then, or we would be in much bigger shit by now.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #519 on: August 11, 2019, 12:17:09 AM »
Oh yeah awesome trajectory, a country like Japan full of old people.

You wanna guess how fast the cries "world government " would be heard ?

I guess every nation would wait the others to start.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #520 on: August 11, 2019, 12:19:50 AM »
Try getting the various religions to go along. Needs some true enlightenment to go down that path. Although, the affluent will find a way.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #521 on: August 11, 2019, 04:25:06 AM »
<snipped>
I sure am glad a certain Chinese read Limits to Growth and managed to change his country's demographic trajectory, back then, or we would be in much bigger shit by now.
Ramen!

China's One Child Policy stands unique as the greatest program to fight climate change proposed or enacted by any nation.


Yet praise for their foresight is lacking. Why?
Terry

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #522 on: August 11, 2019, 08:23:38 AM »
<snipped>
I sure am glad a certain Chinese read Limits to Growth and managed to change his country's demographic trajectory, back then, or we would be in much bigger shit by now.
Ramen!

China's One Child Policy stands unique as the greatest program to fight climate change proposed or enacted by any nation.


Yet praise for their foresight is lacking. Why?
Terry

Because it was imposed rather than adopted from the bottom up.
I'm a population hawk, and decided many years ago that the last thing the planet needs is more humans, so chose not to breed.
But I love children, and would not impose my choice generally.
Although I did impose my choice on my partner...I doubt she will ever really forgive me.
It's a wicked problem

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #523 on: August 11, 2019, 08:37:27 AM »
Studies show that China's population would probably not be very different without the one-child policy since its total fertility ration followed the same path as countries with similar education/GDP levels.

Just an example: Iran had a TFR of 6 (!) in 1985 and now has 1.66
Thailand had 6 in 1965, now has 1.55
China had 6 in 1965 and now has 1.62 (despite the alleged one-child policy)

if you look at the charts they had the same slope, you could not say which one had a "policy" for less child-birth

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 915
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #524 on: August 11, 2019, 08:43:00 AM »
Oh yeah awesome trajectory, a country like Japan full of old people.
I much prefer Japan's situation to Nigeria's. In the long run, Japan could reach stability, while Nigeria's unlimited growth could end in nothing but collapse.

As for religions and everybody waiting for others to do it, I know obviously this won't happen. But from a resource and population perspective, it's the only remaining theoretical solution, and even that may not be enough to prevent collapse, in my humble opinion.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 915
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #525 on: August 11, 2019, 09:35:52 AM »
Studies show that China's population would probably not be very different without the one-child policy since its total fertility ration followed the same path as countries with similar education/GDP levels.
Some of the effect would have happened anyway, but are you seriously suggesting the effect was not significant?
In any case, this is all theoretical, as no one is planning on making another such program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#Population_control



Quote
Initially, China's post-1949 leaders were ideologically disposed to view a large population as an asset. But the liabilities of a large, rapidly growing population soon became apparent. For one year, starting in August 1956, vigorous support was given to the Ministry of Public Health's mass birth control efforts. These efforts, however, had little impact on fertility. After the interval of the Great Leap Forward, Chinese leaders again saw rapid population growth as an obstacle to development, and their interest in birth control revived. In the early 1960s, schemes somewhat more muted than during the first campaign, emphasized the virtues of late marriage. Birth control offices were set up in the central government and some provincial-level governments in 1964. The second campaign was particularly successful in the cities, where the birth rate was cut in half during the 1963–66 period. The upheaval of the Cultural Revolution brought the program to a halt, however.

In 1972 and 1973 the party mobilized its resources for a nationwide birth control campaign administered by a group in the State Council. Committees to oversee birth control activities were established at all administrative levels and in various collective enterprises. This extensive and seemingly effective network covered both the rural and the urban population. In urban areas public security headquarters included population control sections. In rural areas the country's "barefoot doctors" distributed information and contraceptives to people's commune members. By 1973 Mao Zedong was personally identified with the family planning movement, signifying a greater leadership commitment to controlled population growth than ever before. Yet until several years after Mao's death in 1976, the leadership was reluctant to put forth directly the rationale that population control was necessary for economic growth and improved living standards.

Population growth targets were set for both administrative units and individual families. In the mid-1970s the maximum recommended family size was two children in cities and three or four in the country. Since 1979 the government has advocated a one-child limit for both rural and urban areas and has generally set a maximum of two children in special circumstances. As of 1986 the policy for minority nationalities was two children per couple, three in special circumstances, and no limit for ethnic groups with very small populations. The overall goal of the one-child policy was to keep the total population within 1.2 billion through the year 2000, on the premise that the Four Modernizations program would be of little value if population growth was not brought under control.

The one-child policy was a highly ambitious population control program. Like previous programs of the 1960s and 1970s, the one-child policy employed a combination of public education, social pressure, and in some cases coercion. The one-child policy was unique, however, in that it linked reproduction with economic cost or benefit.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #526 on: August 11, 2019, 02:21:54 PM »
It's not me. Studies suggest that the effect was probably not very significant. The one child polcy was put in place in 1979, I attach a picture of TFR (china, korea, singapore, thailand) - same path regardless of policies. Korea and Singapore started their developement 1-2 decades before China, that is why their charts start to fall earlier

We know why women have fewer children (pretty well researched): education, welfare, urbanization. Same trends everywhere. Chinese births fell BEFORE the one child policy was enacted.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #527 on: August 11, 2019, 02:31:52 PM »

I've a very dear friend who was born while China was enforcing the One Child Policy. She's provided interesting commentary on the ramifications of the policy and how it has affected family dynamics.


Insights that even as the only child of an only child I would never have considered.


It is however ~8:30AM here, and I've got to get some sleep.
See you on the morrow
Terry



DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #528 on: August 11, 2019, 02:41:14 PM »
Quote from: El Cid
We know why women have fewer children (pretty well researched): education, welfare, urbanization. Same trends everywhere.

Exactly..

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #529 on: August 11, 2019, 05:08:35 PM »
Certainly an interesting discussion regarding the effectiveness of the one child policy in China. In this discussion we should not consider China to be this huge developed monolith.

In 2016, 43.22% of Chinese lived in rural areas.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html

This compares to 19.3% for the U.S.

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #530 on: August 11, 2019, 06:05:54 PM »

No children?! The exact opposite! You can rear them to be dedicated environmentalists. It only takes two to compensate for the mortality of the parents.

Instead of creating stigmas on a personal level by abstaining from having the children you actually want to have, you should indeed have them, and raise them consciously, into non-consumerism, into environmentalism.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #531 on: August 11, 2019, 06:14:34 PM »
Abandoning for the moment how we might best slow the growth in population, I would like to simply look at whether population is Public Enemy No. 1 as I know there is some serious disagreement as to whether this is the case.

I've attached a single chart for context.

I have selected a single point in time to highlight on this chart (1800) as it heralds the real beginning of the industrial revolution. (I will allow for the fact that there is disagreement over this selection. Feel free to select an earlier or later date.) For the 1st time in human history, humans were able to implement the widespread use of machines, improving productivity and increasing the wealth of societies who advanced industry. In Europe, industrial associations were formed to petition their governments to institute policies favorable to industry.

At the start of the industrial revolution, we harnessed natural sources of power to the machines we were creating. This accounts for large textile manufacturing centers being developed along rivers where water power could be harnessed. The 1st steam engine was created in 1698 but coal fired steam engines were used mainly for transportation throughout the 18th century and for the 1st half of the 19th century. It was not until the 2nd half of the 19th century that fossil fuels became the primary source of energy for this remarkable period of growth and the creation of all of the magnificent inventions and technology that continues today.

The inventions have allowed us to do things that were previously impossible; dramatically increase food production, construct remarkable cities, send humans to the moon, cure diseases that were previously considered incurable and, more recently, help the Cubs win a World Series in 2016. This has been made possible by harnessing energy stored for hundreds of millions of years.

There is a dark side to all of this growth and accumulation of wealth. We have despoiled the planet, damaged ecosystems beyond repair and are now threatening the entire planet with human induced warming.

In 1800, the human population stood at just under 1 billion. There had been a remarkable growth over the previous 300 years as the population stood under 1/2 billion in 1500. The growth since 1800 has been driven by the industrial revolution and has been largely dependent on fossil fuel consumption.

The preindustrial carrying capacity of the planet was perhaps 500 million, 1 billion at most. With all of the remarkable inventions of the last 2 centuries, you could argue it is higher now. I would set the upper limit at 2 billion. Feel free to pick your own number. Just don't expect me to listen if you think human population is not an enormous problem.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 07:11:36 PM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #532 on: August 11, 2019, 06:51:56 PM »
We must stop population growth:
https://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/news/population-growth-a-threat-to-planetary-health-29686026
Blaming too many poor black and brown people for the sins of the wealthy white elite.


If we could just sterilize "them", we could fly our private jets about without facing the condemnation of our peers.
Terry

From linked article:

"Since the 1960s, modern methods of contraception have seen global fertility plunge “not by half a child or one child per woman, but by 2.5 children”.
Nearly half of the world’s population lives in mostly industrialised countries where average fertility has fallen below 2.1 children per woman.

“Then, however, there are the 104 to 107 countries with fertility levels above 2.1 children per woman. In 38 of these, fertility exceeds four children per woman with Somalia above six and Niger above seven."


The warfare, famine and fertility rate in Somalia is a tragedy. While suggestions made in the article would lessen the suffering, lets not suggest that getting a handle on 3rd world population growth is the solution to our problem.

Somalia CO2 emissions per capita in 2014 was .05 metric tons.
U.S. CO2 emissions per capita in 2014 was 16.49 metric tons.

Population growth and the growth of industrial capitalism go hand in hand. One cannot survive without the other. We will only solve the problem when we address all aspects of the problem. We have a growth system finally bumping up against the absolute constraints imposed by a finite resource, the planet.

We could eliminate every single person who currently lives in the 3rd world and our problem would not be solved. It would be made worse as the wealthy on the planet (just about everybody in Europe and the U.S.) would suddenly have the means to spend more money.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #533 on: August 11, 2019, 08:11:01 PM »
Other than Africa, the world's population is basically not growing. See chart attached (note: you need 2.1-2.2 TFR to have a constant population).

Many countries (like most of Asia) had as high TFR (5-6-7) in 1960 as Sub-Saharan Africa now. 20 years later they went under 2 in most cases. This also happened in Latam 20 years before Asia. And the same thing happened in Europe as well. Why do we think that Africa is special?

Watch Hans Roslings lecures on population statistics, eg:



I think the global population will top out below 10 bn ad then will start sliding. And that is very good.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48

philopek

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 463
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #535 on: August 11, 2019, 10:09:17 PM »
Ramen!

Yet praise for their foresight is lacking. Why?
Terry

- arrogance
- disrespect
- no good and objective education in history
- western propaganda
- educational brainwashing

etc. etc. etc.......

And this is not the only topic where it's like this.

Less self-importance and more respect for other cultures and priorities would be key, because the other parameters depend on it.

BTW Oren just said what would be a good thing to do, he did not say that it would be easy or even feasible, hence to counter a good argument with fatalism is not target leading.

Discarding good approaches with lack of dedicatin is the most certain way with doom at it's terminus.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #536 on: August 12, 2019, 04:15:35 AM »
Ramen!

Yet praise for their foresight is lacking. Why?
Terry

- arrogance
- disrespect
- no good and objective education in history
- western propaganda
- educational brainwashing

etc. etc. etc.......

And this is not the only topic where it's like this.

Less self-importance and more respect for other cultures and priorities would be key, because the other parameters depend on it.

BTW Oren just said what would be a good thing to do, he did not say that it would be easy or even feasible, hence to counter a good argument with fatalism is not target leading.

Discarding good approaches with lack of dedicatin is the most certain way with doom at it's terminus.

bingo.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #537 on: August 12, 2019, 04:19:22 AM »
I think the global population will top out below 10 bn ad then will start sliding. And that is very good.

I think the global population will top out below 10 billion and then start falling quite rapidly. And it will be very ugly.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #538 on: August 12, 2019, 04:38:35 AM »
I think the global population will top out below 10 bn ad then will start sliding. And that is very good.

I think the global population will top out below 10 billion and then start falling quite rapidly. And it will be very ugly.
We could easily lose a few billion in the span of a few years, or worse, all of the billions. But I think a reduction of 2-3 billion due to an India-Pakistan nuclear war and resulting famine is the most likely scenario to occur and it could happen before we reach 8 billion planet-wide. This would leave most of the world at a sustainable number.

In a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, I could see --

About 100 nuclear weapons used
Immediate death toll (within one week) of about 100,000,000
Short-term death toll of another 500,000,000 due to fallout, war
Long-term death toll of an additional 1,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 due to famine and food shortages, this would occur across most developing countries

The results?

North America: population stabilized
South America: population stabilized
Europe: population growth may temporarily spike due to refugee crisis, otherwise stabilized
Africa: population would halve or worse then stabilize or continue declining
Asia: population would be reduced by a quarter or worse, then stabilize
Oceania: population stabilized

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #539 on: August 12, 2019, 08:53:47 AM »
yes, the world could end tomorrow, and yes a nuclear war could happen as well (i can also conjure up any population scenarios if it includes nuclear warheads)

but as these are just fanasies/nightmare scenarios, we should stick to what we have: statistics and data and projections based on these

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 915
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #540 on: August 12, 2019, 09:43:36 AM »
Other than Africa, the world's population is basically not growing. See chart attached (note: you need 2.1-2.2 TFR to have a constant population).
I wonder then how it is that:
Asia is adding 40 million annually (about 1/3 of that is India).
LatAm is adding 6 million annually.
Northern America and Europe together are adding 3 million annually.
Africa is adding 32 million annually - only 40% of the total.

Africa had the highest growth rate by far, but it started from a low base
BTW, TFR is not the only factor, it also matters at what age people have children.

Source:
https://www.worldometers.info/population/world/

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #541 on: August 12, 2019, 02:35:34 PM »
So, again, to delay a discussion about methods to control the population, I would again like to get a sense of how people feel now about human population. Given we are mammals living on this planet...

How would you assess the current world's population of 7.7 billion in relationship to the earth's ability to support us in a sustainable fashion while maintaining a healthy biosphere?

1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.

2. We are near or have arrived at a sustainable population level.

3. The earth is capable of supporting a population larger than our current population in a sustainable fashion.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 03:03:59 PM by Shared Humanity »

cognitivebias2

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #542 on: August 12, 2019, 02:41:34 PM »
The answer is:
  3. The earth is capable of supporting a population larger than our current population in a sustainable fashion.

However, with our current technology/politics/political will/etc, the answer is:
  1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.


We are suffering a massive technical debt and its unclear that there is a path to resolve it.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #543 on: August 12, 2019, 02:46:27 PM »
The answer is:
  3. The earth is capable of supporting a population larger than our current population in a sustainable fashion.

However, with our current technology/politics/political will/etc, the answer is:
  1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.


We are suffering a massive technical debt and its unclear that there is a path to resolve it.

I second that

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #544 on: August 12, 2019, 02:49:05 PM »
The answer is:
  3. The earth is capable of supporting a population larger than our current population in a sustainable fashion.

However, with our current technology/politics/political will/etc, the answer is:
  1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.


We are suffering a massive technical debt and its unclear that there is a path to resolve it.

Thank you for responding. It's a simple question with three answers. Could you limit your selection to one? When I read your qualifier for your 2nd selection, I think your answer is 3. Correct?


cognitivebias2

  • New ice
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #545 on: August 12, 2019, 02:58:03 PM »
Sorry SH, I don't think the simple answer suffices.  But yes, especially since the rest is out there, I would pick 3 to the simple question.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #546 on: August 12, 2019, 02:58:37 PM »
Other than Africa, the world's population is basically not growing. See chart attached (note: you need 2.1-2.2 TFR to have a constant population).
I wonder then how it is that:
Asia is adding 40 million annually (about 1/3 of that is India).
LatAm is adding 6 million annually.
Northern America and Europe together are adding 3 million annually.
Africa is adding 32 million annually - only 40% of the total.

Africa had the highest growth rate by far, but it started from a low base
BTW, TFR is not the only factor, it also matters at what age people have children.

Source:
https://www.worldometers.info/population/world/

My wording was wrong - you are right.

When you have a low TFR but also a low average age, it leads to population growth for a few years before topping out. That is happening in Asia.

Example: you have 10 10 year olds and 10 20 yr olds in a population (of20), and this population has a very low TFR, say 1. Then, despite a TFR of 1, the population will obviously grow for a while since those 20 people will have 10 children and most of the 20 of the original population will live for a long time, so the population goes to 30 (or 28,29, depending on deaths). However, a TFR of 1 means that eventually this population will shrink and keep on shrinking. This is the situation is most of Asia and Latam. There is still some "leftover" growth, but given that its TFR is 2.19 and going down, Asian population is in the process of topping out.

(BTW, Europe's population is ging up because of migrants according to your data: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-population/

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #547 on: August 12, 2019, 02:59:35 PM »
My answer is: theoretically the planet is easily able to support 10 bn people

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 915
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #548 on: August 12, 2019, 03:04:33 PM »
SH, very easy (you could start a poll BTW):
1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.

IF we all lived on the very minimum amount of resources per person, then maybe we might be able to fit 10 billion people on the planet and feed them in a sustainable way. I very much doubt the feeding part. But we certainly don't, and we certainly won't, so the caveat is irrelevant. IMHO.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #549 on: August 12, 2019, 03:27:05 PM »
SH, very easy (you could start a poll BTW):
1. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet significantly.

IF we all lived on the very minimum amount of resources per person, then maybe we might be able to fit 10 billion people on the planet and feed them in a sustainable way. I very much doubt the feeding part. But we certainly don't, and we certainly won't, so the caveat is irrelevant. IMHO.

Thanks, Oren. I think I will set up a poll later today. I will work on the wording of the questions to make it easier for the community members to comfortably choose an answer. It will be interesting and useful for all of us to understand where we are on this issue.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 03:33:13 PM by Shared Humanity »