RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
October 17, 2018 at 8:12 am
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2018 at 9:25 am by Alan V.)
(October 11, 2018 at 10:42 am)Khemikal Wrote: ...
With all of that in mind, the newest face of population pessimism revolves around climate change. Again the same assumptions are made..which have turned out to be both predictively and factual untrue time and time again. Now, you'd think that people would get tired of predicting the apocalypse by any name...but, obviously, we don't. It's an ancient pastime. These advocates point to localized food shortage as justification for their assumptions..but as we discussed above, the failure of those assumptions and the identification of the cause of those shortages has since become a known know..and it's not overall population. We could assume, like malthus in 1798..that "climate appropriate tech" is essentially fixed, in order to derive a theoretical carrying capacity. We could assume, like the erlichs in the 60's, that nothing can be done to avert crisis beyond depopulation.
...
Population pessimism is just pessimism. It's not scientific, and it's not a fact, and it's not a solution. It has it's roots and it's motivations in a political ideology - and I'm not saying that the ideology is all bad, or that they don't make valid points within it, mind..I'm just trying to give you a clearer picture of the field. )
Calling something "pessimism" is an interesting rhetorical tactic. Yes, Ehrlich and others have been proven wrong. Do they represent everyone who is concerned about population? No.
Are scientists predicting the apocalypse? No, they are pointing out a big problem we need to fix, and soon, or we will suffer the consequences. I have read over 50 books on climate change and associated issues. The greatest unknown in climate change research is how humans will react. The scientists who model the future therefore create alternative scenarios based on the best available information and project (not predict) various possible outcomes. Uncertainties are built right into those projections. So first of all you are arguing against only certain individuals.
Second, I am not interested in betting the future of the planet on unproven technologies, or on an inductive assessment which depends entirely on the future playing out the same way as the past. I am interested in more conservative and proven tactics, since our need is immediate to combat climate change. We only have another 20 or 30 years to make significant progress before all those really nasty feedback mechanisms start kicking in, which may take the future of our climate out of our own hands.
Third, Malthusian assumptions have been proven in evolutionary theory and even historically in certain human societies, like Easter Island. You are more than disingenuous to over-simplify them so you can dismiss them altogether. Population is, and will continue to be, a multiplier of environmental impact. I = PAT. How scientific does one have to be to make a simple point? You are laughably calling real scientists unscientific.
In any case, this is almost a moot point. Population is leveling out in most parts of the world, and may in fact never reach 10 billion worldwide. Some areas will still have big problems with population, like central Africa and India, but population control will not be the most effective method we use to counteract climate change. We simply won't be able to change it quickly enough to have a useful impact.
