@Trancecoach Lets take a HUGE leap and say everything in that article is 100% true...

6 of 7 !!!!

http://fortune.com/global500/bp-6/?iid=G500_lp_toprr

How do you reconcile that with the fact that 6 of the worlds 7 most profitable companies are energy corps? TRILLIONS of revenue and hundreds of billions in profit, to say nothing of the track record for that particular industry, and yet THEY are the victims of some 'eco-friendly' conspiracy....

Just a few headlines from that 'source'

Group Claims 80% of U.S. Population Growth Is From Immigration

Globalists Push EU-style “Union” for Middle East

University Fires Scientist After Discovery Challenges Dinosaur Theory

That last one was my favorite... his 'theory' was thousands of years old... not millions.

@ChaosEngine

While long term, it is continuous, relatively easy to encourage (than directly constrain population growth) and historically effective.

As for resources consumption, see my posts about automatic adjustment, comparison to nuclear family, fallacy of fixed factors in an economy etc ... If you disagree with any of these, why?

@gorillaman

Which is politically infeasible, short of a dictatorial state like China.

At this point there are no significant physical resources that you have pointed out that are genuinely becoming scarce. If they were, we would see prices sky-rocket and an adjustment away to another type would take place.

I gave the example of labour resources becoming scarce and the adjustment to dual income households. That was a gradual adjustment.

But okay, suppose energy resources genuinely became scarce. Current alternative energy (nuclear/renewable) techniques are not as cost effective as coal/gas/oil. But if there were genuine scarcity in fossil fuels, they would be.

We would know about the coming scarcity for at least a decade ahead and would build out alternative capacity over that period. Even if the average cost were twice current energy costs, how would that be different to the change to dual income households? Society wouldn't like it, but we would adjust.

Perhaps there may be some unrest in borderline developing/poor countries, especially those dependant on energy exports. But there would be no incentive for inter-country wars. In fact, those with the most efficient renewable technology would have much to gain from trading and selling their technology to those who do not.

The problem with the hypothesis that lifting people out of poverty lowers the population growth rate is twofold.

First, it is a long term (as in several generations) solution.

Second, as people become better off, they typically consume more resources.

The problem is not people it's resources. The tipping point is not x billion people. It's x billion people multiplied by the average resource consumption of a human. The planet is big, but it's finite.

@shveddy

Fair enough. I guess I see things from a different perspective, but ultimately neither of us can really know how the future will eventuate.

When I see China buying up land/investing in Africa, I see a system of inter-dependence being built such as the consumer / exporter relationship that underpins US/China that acts as a stabiliser in relationships with any potential conflict threatening both parties' interests and helping to ensure stability (although some could argue trade was heavily entrenched between Britain and Germany pre-WWI).

The baby boomer generation wasn't a blip, it was very much the defining moment of world population growth. Also, by definition, growth is no longer exponential. On average, it is regressive and at the most pessimistic estimates (which I think are completely unrealistic), it is linear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

As more people come up to middle/high income levels, I think what that implies will fundamentally adjust. Just as a single income is no longer sufficient to sustain a nuclear sized family, I suspect adjustments in price will dictate that our entertainment and recreational activity will increasingly be virtual and computerized with a much smaller resource cost.

I think it's a frequent economic fallacy to assume aspects of society will remain fixed. Just like how there are not a fixed number of jobs that immigrants threaten (Lump of labour fallacy), high income lifestyles are not fixed.

@gorillaman

First paragraph is pretty much addressed above by my last two above.

I'm not denying that corporations pollute because of the competitive incentives of consumers. The alternative however, of targeting consumers to inform them of the costs of their actions (assuming that this would change their purchasing decisions) is a roundabout solution that I think we both realise would not be nearly as cost effective.

If you think tax/financial incentives are not the best way to curb environmental damage, then please suggest a more effective alternative.

@RedSky

I don't know how many times you want me to explain to you that it is not the absolute number of humans on Earth that signifies. In principle a human being costs no more than a large dog to support.* The number of advanced, high energy, modern lifestyles is the figure in question, which you want approximately to quintuple to around ten billion (as recently as fifty to sixty years ago there were fewer than one billion near-modern humans on Earth); that's using a high estimate of the number already at that level, a low estimate of the growth in their resource consumption over the relevant period and a low estimate of total population growth; that's your plan. Or alternatively, to share two billions worth of resources among ten, a burden civilisation cannot bear.

Corporations pollute only so far as we require them to. These are not cigar-puffing fat cats pouring oil on baby seals for the evulz; the fulfilment of the social function we assign them necessarily involves pollution. Expecting to control that effectively with tax incentives is childishly naive.


*Much less if we forego meat. Carnivorous pet ownership by criminals is a substantial driving factor in climate change.

@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.

@SDGundamX

Thanks!

@shveddy

Bit confused since you say there's a point of no return at the end, but yes your argument is not really about that.

People not meeting their nutritional needs right now is not due to an under supply but due to general poverty. If sufficient employment and income existed in impoverished countries the world supply of food would be able to cope. As far as a lack of balance, see my earlier point about bringing people out of poverty, closing global income gaps and all sharing the available resources.

I don't think you could characterise any of the global conflicts in the past 100 years as being primarily due to resource scarcity. Perhaps Japan's aggression in SE Asia around WWII because of its lack of energy resources but that's an isolated case in the post-Depression era brought about by misguided isolationist economic policies. If you really want to prevent resource wars, your best bet is to be a staunch advocate of free trade.

Large countries have gone to war because of personalities, territorial ambitions and a general desire for power, not out of necessity because of scarcity.

As far as a point of population balance, that's entirely subjective. Like I said before, his bandying around of exponential is completely unfounded. Population growth is rising at a much reduced rate, proportionate growth relative to current levels is much smaller than in the 1950s during the baby boomer period.

When you say 20Bn as an example, I don't think you appreciate how much we're going to plateau. Have a read of:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/daily-chart-10

9.6Bn by 2050
10.9Bn by 2100

There is a good chance we will never hit anywhere close to 20Bn short of life enhancing technology which at this point doesn't exist. If we do, then I could equally argue we will invent technology that will reduce our individual resource needs dramatically.

Do I wish population growth was lower and there were more for each of us? Sure. Louis CK has a great bit on it. Agreed on women's rights and education, but as with everything it's correlated to societal poverty. You may as well kill two birds with one stone by just focussing on that. Every policy action has an opportunity cost, given what I've said, I would rather focus on something more pressing.

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.

I don't think anyone's advocating forced population control here.

I only think that people are advocating that a greater emphasis on family planning be incorporated into your prescription for everyone to "control his own activities and teach his neighbor the virtues of his infinitely sustainable choices."

Doing this too fast would be demographic suicide for a lot of complicated reasons, I don't think anyone is denying that, but a very significant organic reduction over the course of a few centuries would be beneficial for humanity and could be reasonably attained. It's certainly less far-fetched than mass colonization of Mars or Venus in the same timeframe.

And that's an important distinction here. We aren't really concerned about the environment here. We're concerned about what's best for us.

The environment is going to shrug us off and incorporate all our plastic, CO2, and evidence of narrowing biodiversity into a few more strata and continue doing its thing. It has survived mass extinctions before.

It's ridiculous to think that we can even destroy the environment. Our population size and its destructive effects would be reduced to insignificance long before we hit a point of no return and the biosphere's existence is even slightly threatened.

We should be framing the argument in terms of how to achieve an environmental equilibrium in which humanity can live in a comfortable and humane manner.

I think we're a lot closer to a point of no return with regards to achieving that goal.

For my money I'd say that exponential population growth isn't pointing us in that direction, and living - as I do - in a rapidly modernizing "second world" country tells me that bringing all eight billion of us to affluence too quickly poses its own significant dangers.

Let's not forget that this videos two main points are that we are demonstrably in a period of exponential growth, and that exponential growth from the limited perspective of the inside can be deceptive. Points of no return that seem far away are in fact very close.

@gorillaman

The market dictates prices and the capacity to consume the current amount that we do. With more people affluent and more demand, the price of items will go up based on levels of scarcity. With less countries to outsource lower paid labour to, prices on the supply side will also rise.

Whatever we have will be shared based on wealth. It's the interests of fairly sharing resources that as many people as possible rise from poverty to match rich/middle income countries.

I don't know about his predictions, I was sourcing the data on the relation between birth rate and poverty.

Your range seems arbitrary and not supported by any data. Massively restricting population growth, if it were even possible in anything but a dictatorial state would create the same problems China will have in the coming years as I listed. If we let it plateau, as it's expected to, I don't see how the harm (of having to share more), outweighs the obvious problems of a large elderly/young imbalance.

@Sniper007

Colonisation of other planets, if it happens, will not ease overpopulation on Earth. Assuming it's actually done with humans rather than, say bacteria which are so much easier to transport; it must involve small seed populations of colonists, not firing billions of people off into space. Where do you imagine the energy required would come from? As it stands in 2014 we can barely move a handful of people into low earth orbit, a few hundred kilometres away.

Think about the logistics of transporting and housing all these billions of colonists in a hostile environment. Making the environment itself habitable is an even greater challenge; we can't even seem to fix the one we have on Earth, the one we spent billions of years evolving to suit.

The expansion of the universe, meanwhile, is always giving us less material to work with and perpetually moving it further away.

@SDGundamX

Relying on technology to solve overpopulation is like refusing to stop smoking because by the time you get cancer science will have found a cure.

Scientific advancement is not a given. It doesn't progress at a guaranteed rate and it isn't a genie that will automatically offer a salve to every need. Or, to coin a cliche, "Where's my jetpack?"

Luckily however, in the instant case scientists have offered an easy solution to overpopulation: Stop having so many children.

@RedSky

Poverty reduction without population reduction - reduction, not stabilisation - is catastrophic. The current global population of ~7.2 billion is only survivable, never mind sustainable, because most of those billions are impoverished peasants who barely consume any resources at all. Elevating the poor to a rich, westernesque lifestyle multiplies the effects of overpopulation tremendously, even if it slightly slows population growth in absolute terms.

Rosling doesn't seem to understand the actual problem, and his predictions are at any rate, horrifyingly optimistic.

We need to be shooting for a global population in the range of 100 million - 1 billion. Any substantially higher number than that is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

The solution to overpopulation has always been poverty reduction:

http://videosift.com/video/TED-Hans-Rosling-on-Global-Population-Growth

What stabilises population growth is the birth rate being below the replacement rate (2.1). At 2009 it was 2.33, meaning the doom and gloom is almost completely unwarranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates

As far as the one child policy, it's unclear if it was necessary in light of China's growth and consequent poverty reduction which would have reduced it without any direct action. What's certain is that it's created a huge group of ageing workers currently approaching retirement with few children to take care of them.

By 2050, China will be roughly as bad as Japan, which has the largest elderly/young imbalance in the world currently. Which will weigh down pension systems, slow down policies towards growth and ironically keep population growth higher because of diverted spending.

I dunno... Malthus was predicting doom and gloom about population growth back in the 1800s but the "Malthusian catastrophe" never came to pass thanks to technology. Technological advancement allowed us to farm better foods more efficiently and to farm areas that were previously inaccessible.

I figure the same process will continue into the future, except it won't be incidental (as it was in Malthus's time) but a deliberate, concerted effort on the part of humanity to be more efficient with our energy and food production while reducing the impacts of our waste... pretty much exactly what Colonel Sanders David Suzuki is saying here.

tl:dr

Science will save us, not family planning.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- 20 seconds in and my mind is already blown... Only 93% of all human beings ever are currently dead? Think about how many generations of homo sapiens there have been, and consider that at any one time an individual is pretty lucky if they themself + generations of offspring currently living + generations of ancestors currently living is greater than or equal to 4.

Considering all that plus the 93% figure from this video, I have come to the conclusion that the only explanation is that we've gotten into the real business end of an exponential population growth curve and are currently massively, desperately overpopulated.