I don't know why somebody would ask a physicist about biology, agriculture and economy. And I don't know why he would choose to answer.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-climate-change-agriculture-family-farm-science/

Do not rely on external governance for anything except destruction and failure.

Just because this is associated with Koch doesn't mean it's wrong. It is a simplification though. Changes to the legal code which saw enforcement of property rights were critical. Without the scientific advances of the industrial revolution, these gains in efficiency and wealth couldn't have been achieved and a disproportionate proportion of the population would have had to remain in agriculture. Among other things I'm forgetting.

@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

You're conflating two different points.

1 - Is overpopulation a problem that needs to be addressed?
2 - If it is a problem, is it possible for us to address?

We've been competing for less and less resources ever since populations started growing. Nobody in this thread has offered any evidence for why suddenly at and above 7 billion it will really become a problem this time. My hypothesis is that the past shows that the change in living standards from increased populations will be gradual and not cause some kind of cataclysmic hunger or global food war. Where is your evidence to the contrary? I've shown examples recent and past where the world has dealt with respectively, (1) high commodity prices and (2) dealt with proportionately much higher population growth than what we are experiencing today.

Society has continually shown the ability to drastically grow agricultural yields, tap deeper and harder to access water and energy reserves and substitute different inputs when a commodity becomes scarce or expensive. With global birth rates barely above replacement and global population plateauing, where is your evidence that with the ingenuity of the many people that have come out of poverty since the end of the Cold War, that we won't be able to handle a historically relatively mild proportionate growth in population?

Every time I see someone channelling Malthusian scare mongering such as this video, I always see the same tropes -

(1) The word exponential bounded about with some kind of mystical reverence;
(2) An over-abundant use of analogies while being absent of any historical basis for their argument; and
(3) A complete lack of plausible solutions to the problem because their argument is grounded in emotion and intuition rather than practicality.

@shveddy

I don't buy his overstretched ticking time bomb analogy or the idea of a point of no return. Countless people have predicted peak oil, global resource wars and the like for decades with none of significance eventuating.

Historically this argument would have been even more credible looking around the baby boomer growth of post WWII, because relative population growth was much higher and families were much larger even in developed countries.

Nevertheless, (taking food as an example) agricultural yields multiplied while (taking the US as an example) agricultural employment fell from ~35% in 1900 to <3% today.

Again, pre-GFC, both general food and oil prices were reaching near historic highs. We've since seen moves towards expanding oil/gas supply through fraking and more aggressive and widespread use of GM to enhance yields as well as purely enhancing supply in response to high prices. Both have stayed more or less flat since 08.

The point is, it will be a gradual change, one that society will respond to automatically through price rises, and incentives to create more efficient use of the resources that are available.

Also as far as how to achieve a reduced population as you alluded to, people don't respond to vague global threats that don't immediately impact them currently. Like global warming. Anything other than financial incentives or legal coercion won't have an impact.

Those presentations are the kind Vi admits here she doesn't want to give here because some are already familiar with it and bored with it. She says that about 3 times. And refers to how she hastily adapted it to refer to agriculture.
Yes, agriculture. Because YouTube success translates to agriculture.

I agree- the organisers likely didn't brief her enough of the scope. The conference is a willy-nilly kumbaya for artists doing their own thing. Or agriculture.

But I dispute your points. Because I know about her and been following her for a while;
* no she doesn't get chances because she's a young lady. She's not that young and is actually very used to giving presentations;
* she's totally a public personality (yo, she presents how you should monetize on being your own brand!).

She did put in a good effort, I'll give her that. Good sport despite the slide fail. Which is still better than I can say for Michael Bay who probably had way better direction, support, and speech writers.

You don't have to be a stand-up comic. Drive one point. Be honest, genuine, and personable. And if you can't - you're not worth other people's time - politely decline the gig.

Worst kind of presentation -
it fails;
the presenter makes it all about them (instead of an idea, a lesson, an event);
they don't know the reason they're talking (what? Agriculture?);
they talk inside baseball (the time they have left, they don't know what they're talking about;
holds the audience hostage for their own amusement (that awkward clapping at the beginning).

Shudder shudder shudder.

Regardless of what happens with these protests, Venezuela is a classic example of a country where a vast proportion of people have conflated Chavez's socialist policies with the country's oil and gas fueled growth from the early 2000s to the GFC. Nothing is likely to change that anytime soon even if there were a change of government.

The problem recently has been the combination of the new president Maduro who does not have Chavez populist legitimacy and the QE tapering in the US which is seeing currencies slide in emerging markets, but mostly in countries that had issues to begin with (Argentina, Turkey, Venezuela).

Economically the country is screwed because of the hugely corrupt and inefficient state owned energy companies, the expropriation and nationalisation of the agricultural sector. The government has responded with minimum wage hikes, printing money and capital controls on currency conversion which all just forestall the inevitable crisis.

As usual with countries like these, what props up the government is the system of patronage between the government and the elite/military. If the government were to make their state run firms efficient and/or privatise them, they couldn't skim off the top. If they can't skim off the top they have no money, no authority and they get thrown out.

@Sotto_The issue is the power and influence one corporation has over the world's food supply and those who would use their influence in the Department of Agriculture and the Supreme court to implement sweeping legislation or hinder the free will of the small, medium, large or other farmers who would have nothing to do with Monsanto's seeds or who wish only to use sumbunall of their products, not whether a farmer is given their rice for free in an ethical fashion to grow some proprietary rice (ever try to grow rice? S'pretty dependent on climate and seasons, rainfall and other environmental conditions, not to mention the hectares it requires to cultivate) as opposed to say leafy greens of all kinds, sweet potatoes, squash, all of which are much more easily cultivated AND, have shorter seed to fruit times as well as requiring much less space AND, are chock-full of Vitamin A.
We don't even mention here Paprika, Red Pepper, Cayenne, Chili Powder, which are WAY higher in Vitamin A and pretty much grow like weeds when cultivated by morons.

Shaky and hollow point your study cited as well, to support what is obviously a fishy prospect providing this option to poorer countries when you consider the back-door dealing that a corporation like M practices and their track-record of driving small farmers out of business with endless litigation and an army of lah-yahs, investigators, all petty thugs and criminals on their payroll.

A no-brainer? Yeah, if you spout the party-line and din't use your brain but instead cited an "official' study from a 'recognized', 'expert's' journal.

Again, loaded language in your closing with the assumption that most opponents and vocal activists of GMO crops are science deniers. Broad, brush-strokes my friend.
Labels.

I for one want these motherfucker's labs under extreme scrutiny and their science tested and re-tested by those not on their payrolls or whose interests do not include stocks in their concerns. I also want heirloom seeds, regardless of yields, whose fruits produce fertile seeds.

MOST GMO crop's fruited seeds are as sterile as your argument, the genetic markers tweaked similarly to insure that the market on common-sense and centuries-honored methods be cornered and rendered inadequate.

The US Government = Monsanto. Doesn't anyone see that? The individuals serving in both switch positions from time to time. Meaning: Everyone who works for Monsanto has worked for the US Government, and everyone who works for the (relevant agricultural positions in the) US Government has worked for Monsanto. It's the same people!

I like Bill Nye. But this whole argument treats 'Africa' (as only one example of a region of the underdeveloped and exploited world) as the nebulous hell-region where bad things happen. He cites examples of these bad things, but then, in a characteristically bourgeois fashion, he focuses on the consumptive problems (not enough aid, not enough to eat, no enough medicine, etc). And who is responsible for this? The first-world, capitalist zones of power (the US, Europe, 'civilization', etc).

Why don't we actually look at the production-side of things. Why can't Africa produce its own resources? It once was able to, very efficiently and without problems. That is, until imperialism happened. We are taking about a continent that was broken up into artificial nations, where agriculture was transformed into cash crops, where millions were shipped off as slave labor. We are talking about a continent that has tried for hundreds of years to fight for liberation for itself, only to have these imperialist countries keep their stranglehold on its neck.

(go wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

My point here is that the whole discussion of more or less foreign aid presupposes an Africa that cannot feed itself. The solution is not to continue a dependent relationship. The solution is a sustainable and liberated Africa, who has economic control over her resources, and political freedom for her own people. the solution is self-determination, not should the US try to feed more of the kids? (whose starvation is rooted in the US's wealth. )

/end rant

If there was no welfare of any sort, people would still have to apply at Walmart. People with stomachs to be filled far outnumber jobs that generate an income. And while the population is increasing, the number of jobs -- in the long run -- is actually decreasing.

It was always clear that automation would greatly reduce the number of jobs in manufacturing and agriculture, first and foremost. Given that the latest burst in technology is represented by Google, Apple, FB and Amazon, I'd say the hope of generating jobs through new areas of technology fell flat on its arse -- those four giants are worth a combined $1T, yet employ only 150k, or half as many as GE.

tl;dr

#people >> #jobs, exacerbated by robots/automation and politically suppressed aggregate demand

--------------------------

As for minimum wage being entry level wage: that's the idea, but given the age structure of fast food workers and the number of them who worked the job for years and years, it is merely theoretical in nature. Many people are stuck in it, others are floating in and out of employment at minimum wage level. Asking for a higher wage becomes a futile exercise as long as there's an army of willing replacements on the market. Some corporations try to minimize turn-over by paying above-average wages (Costco, Aldi), but the vast majority engage in a race to the bottom.

If you ask me, all of us deserve food in our stomachs, a roof over our heads. And health insure, while we're at it. The establishment over here used to call it the "revolution tax", because it allows people to retain some level of dignity and prevents them from chopping everyone's heads off with a guillotine. I prefer a considerably more expansive definition of human dignity, but I'm just one of those dirty socialists, so...

Invest in your local CSA (community supported agriculture) if you have one available in your community.

Weekly, in-season fresh vegetables can't be beat!