The world's population should be at most 50 million.

[Alan V]

I = P A T

The environmental impact (I) equals the population (P) times the affluence (A) times the technology (T) used to acquire it.

Population is a multiplier.  One-tenth of the population means you have reduced the impact, whatever it is, by nine-tenths.

The poorest 1 billion are 3% of our carbon footprint (and I'm rounding up bils here to say 10bil, since we'll be there sooner or later), there's one tenth of our -future- population that would not reduce impact of climate change by nine tenths if it were completely removed.  

Similarly we can reduce our affluence or change our technologies to have lower impacts and thus reduce climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

I'd go with changing our tech and fixing our distribution before I told the poors to stop fucking like that would actually do something.

The Chinese are the biggest CO2 polluters today because of their huge population, even with a fraction of the per capita footprint of Americans.  Both China and India want to increase their affluence significantly this century, which is a real problem for controlling climate change.  They are still increasing their burning of fossil fuels.

Studies have shown that increasing education for girls is the most effective way to reduce populations.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Chinese are the biggest CO2 polluters today because of their huge population, even with a fraction of the per capita footprint of Americans.  Both China and India want to increase their affluence significantly this century, which is a real problem for controlling climate change.  They are still increasing their burning of fossil fuels.

Absolutely, they're burning through the shit.  On the one hand we can see that this is problematic..but on the other, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to say that if you want life to look like x in your country, there's a certain chunk of fossil fuels you can burn through to get there.  We did it, and sitting up here seeking to close that door behind us is a tough sell.

Better to provide compelling alternatives to the burning of those fuels that will produce the increase desired.  It's just a shame we went the other way with it.  Deregulating and stagnating at the level of federal policy.  
(that ship needs to be righted. IIRC, we spend ten times as much on fossil fuel subsidy compared to renewables)

Studies have shown that increasing education for girls is the most effective way to reduce populations.

I'm sure it helps.

---

I think I can find a way to tie you, bker, and you, thoreau...to a single communal issue and then explain why we might just want to keep those poors around, bringing all three of us into a sort of agreement. Follow me through the weeds, tell me what you think.

If we agree that fossil fuel consumption is a global problem.  If we agree that our food systems are based start to finish on oil. Let;s talk about a post fossil fuel reality.

Who is going to do the work that all of those fossil fuel consuming machines and methodologies do?  If we want to phase out fossil fuels (and we all three do, I think, yes?), then we might want to hang a now hiring sign out right now and get a headstart on manpower. Alternative methodologies are, as a rule..labor and management intensive.

[onlinebiker]

The Chinese are the biggest CO2 polluters today because of their huge population, even with a fraction of the per capita footprint of Americans.  Both China and India want to increase their affluence significantly this century, which is a real problem for controlling climate change.  They are still increasing their burning of fossil fuels.

Absolutely, they're burning through the shit.  On the one hand we can see that this is problematic..but on the other, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to say that if you want life to look like x in your country, there's a certain chunk of fossil fuels you can burn through to get there.  We did it, and sitting up here seeking to close that door behind us is a tough sell.

Better to provide compelling alternatives to the burning of those fuels that will produce the increase desired.  It's just a shame we went the other way with it.  Deregulating and stagnating at the level of federal policy.  
(that ship needs to be righted.  IIRC, we spend ten times as much on fossil fuel subsidy compared to renewables)

Studies have shown that increasing education for girls is the most effective way to reduce populations.

I'm sure it helps.

---

I think I can find a way to tie you, bker, and you, thoreau...to a single communal issue and then explain why we might just want to keep those poors around, bringing all three of us into a sort of agreement.  Follow me through the weeds, tell me what you think.  

If we agree that fossil fuel consumption is a global problem.  If we agree that our food systems are based start to finish on oil.  Let;s talk about a post fossil fuel reality.

Who is going to do the work that all of those fossil fuel consuming machines and methodologies do?  If we want to phase out fossil fuels (and we all three do, I think, yes?), then we might want to hang a now hiring sign out right now and get a headstart on manpower.  Alternative methodologies are, as a rule..labor and management intensive.

So your solution to poverty is indentured servitude, slavery, or minimum wage?


As if there's a difference to those at the bottom.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely, they're burning through the shit.  On the one hand we can see that this is problematic..but on the other, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to say that if you want life to look like x in your country, there's a certain chunk of fossil fuels you can burn through to get there.  We did it, and sitting up here seeking to close that door behind us is a tough sell.

Better to provide compelling alternatives to the burning of those fuels that will produce the increase desired.  It's just a shame we went the other way with it.  Deregulating and stagnating at the level of federal policy.  
(that ship needs to be righted.  IIRC, we spend ten times as much on fossil fuel subsidy compared to renewables)

I'm sure it helps.

---

I think I can find a way to tie you, bker, and you, thoreau...to a single communal issue and then explain why we might just want to keep those poors around, bringing all three of us into a sort of agreement.  Follow me through the weeds, tell me what you think.  

If we agree that fossil fuel consumption is a global problem.  If we agree that our food systems are based start to finish on oil.  Let;s talk about a post fossil fuel reality.

Who is going to do the work that all of those fossil fuel consuming machines and methodologies do?  If we want to phase out fossil fuels (and we all three do, I think, yes?), then we might want to hang a now hiring sign out right now and get a headstart on manpower.  Alternative methodologies are, as a rule..labor and management intensive.

So your solution to poverty is indentured servitude, slavery, or minimum wage?


As if there's a difference to those at the bottom.

Not at all, but I'd add that the pay we receive for our work has more to do with lack of access to resources than how many people there are on the planet.  Hilariously (in a gallows humor kind of way) a significant amount of starvation involves people who work on farms..and have money to pay...but can't pay -as much- as..say, the american market for which it was intended.  It's never entirely sold, but they starve the locals while they hold product for sale..and because it's perishable - a significant amount is lost even as people hold their hands out, full of money, but can't buy in.  Perhaps we should find a way to pay the producer more for his labor.  

I'm commenting on the reality of a post fossil fuel world, though - and in contradiction to your assertion that a larger pop has only disadvantages.  There is alot of mechanical and chemical work being done by petro.  This work will have to be done some other way.

I'll give you a concrete example.  The average marketable yield of a conventional field of leafy greens/lettuce is 24k head an acre.  This is -with- expensive and fuel guzzling equipment and fertility, and seasonal (chronically underpaid) guest workers.  There's an integrated system that fits on .12 acres, yields 14k head, and in the process 2 tons of fresh fish.  No petrochem is required (or can be used)..and it needs sixty hours of labor a week, allowing for 40k USD for a manager, 20k USD for part timers....year round...it's soiless, a closed loop, and can be constructed with (cheap) off the shelf components. There is no place in the world that people exist, that this can't be built and operated by the locals.

Now, juxtapose that against what we have.  Less than 2% of us feed the rest, and we can only do it in the way that we are because of petrochem.  To do it some other way, at least for now...will require alot more people..and those intensive systems that could fit the bill require steadier labor that can command higher rates of pay..doing tasks that resist automation. Agricultural talent is currently in high demand, and we have an opportunity to change the way we grow food..and the qol of the people who grow it...but we need people. Yes, we can shift labor to a point..but we can only cannibalize labor so much before we see losses of productivity in other necessary areas.

A long way of saying, many hands make light work..and post petrochem ag is a huge lift.

There are other less intuitive ways of addressing the issues of starvation or malnourishment. Were you aware that nearly a quarter of the families served by the largest food bank umbrella (in the us, ofc) are suffering from diseases either caused, or exacerbated, by their diets? Food banks are repositories for junk food...compounding this issue, for one simple reason. As a rule, they lack sufficient cold storage. If you wanted to cut down on starvation and malnourishment, you could do more by installing cost effective diy walk ins than by not having a kid. The amount of kids you have (or are in an area) doesn't necessarily effect the other.

---

*granted the holy grail of sustainable agronomy, is to match petro-independent innovation to the bleeding edge of autonomation - putting all those new "factory food" workers out of a job some day in the same way that employment in the automotive industry went boom then bust - but even in this, our productive capacity would increase, relieving pressure on the issue insomuch as productivity can.

[Alan V]

If we agree that fossil fuel consumption is a global problem.  If we agree that our food systems are based start to finish on oil.  Let's talk about a post fossil fuel reality.

Who is going to do the work that all of those fossil fuel consuming machines and methodologies do?  If we want to phase out fossil fuels (and we all three do, I think, yes?), then we might want to hang a now hiring sign out right now and get a headstart on manpower.  Alternative methodologies are, as a rule..labor and management intensive.

As far as agriculture is concerned, we need to apply permaculture methods on a much larger scale. Those include no-till farming, which cuts down on burning fossil fuels for both tilling and fertilizers, and helps sequester carbon to boot. I'm not sure whether such methods require more labor. I had assumed they were "working smarter, not harder."

[The Grand Nudger]

If we agree that fossil fuel consumption is a global problem.  If we agree that our food systems are based start to finish on oil.  Let's talk about a post fossil fuel reality.

Who is going to do the work that all of those fossil fuel consuming machines and methodologies do?  If we want to phase out fossil fuels (and we all three do, I think, yes?), then we might want to hang a now hiring sign out right now and get a headstart on manpower.  Alternative methodologies are, as a rule..labor and management intensive.

As far as agriculture is concerned, we need to apply permaculture methods on a much larger scale.  Those include no-till farming, which cuts down on burning fossil fuels for both tilling and fertilizers, and helps sequester carbon to boot.  I'm not sure whether such methods require more labor.  I had assumed they were "working smarter, not harder."

Sure, -permaculture is one option..it's integrated ag (integrated with forestry) - but it's not nearly as productive as intensive management (best use would be marginal soils and personal property).  Intensive management is whats required to feed our population, and intensive management feeds it most efficiently even when the pop is small. Commercial ag and growing apples on a swale are not the same thing, nor will they ever be.

You can be absolutely sure that alternative ag is more labor intensive than conventional ag*.  All you need to do is check the total labor hours and cost.  For conventional feild grown lettuce, for example..you have 22 hours of labor at guest wages - yearly.  For the integreated system I was describing, you have 60 hours of labor..weekly, at 60k total cost yearly - and you can stuff at least five of those systems (and their attendant employees) on the same acre, to produce very nearly double the record yield of the conventional while simultaneously producing ten tons of fish.

You shouldn't need to look it up, though, because it should be obvious that tractors and chemicals are doing work that will still need to be done when we remove those tractors and chemicals from the picture. If we didn't go with some alternative or novel approach, and we wanted to keep growing in the fields....all of that petro-labor will have to be added to the total labor cost of the acre in human or "other" hours...otherwise, the result is yield loss.

*the best thing about the starving poor...is that the one thing they have alot of, hell, the only thing...is labor. The barriers to establishment that exist here due to our massive prior investment in the current system are less operative or non operative in developing countries. That's why I mentioned earlier that, even though they're being hit with the effects of climate change first and disproportionately, they are also best positioned for a different future.

As to smarter, not harder..they're doing both, ask em.

[Alan V]

You shouldn't need to look it up, though, because it should be obvious that tractors and chemicals are doing work that will still need to be done when we remove those tractors and chemicals from the picture.  If we didn't go with some alternative or novel approach, and we wanted to keep growing in the fields....all of that petro-labor will have to be added to the total labor cost of the acre in human or "other" hours...otherwise, the result is yield loss.

Your solution may be the best way to deal with climate refugees. However, from what I have read, trucking and farming will likely be powered by biofuels from algae or whatever. There will be some transition, which may be quite abrupt the longer we put off adapting to the coming realities, but it will likely mean a number of transitional compromises until we reach some stable system again. And who knows how much farmland the U.S. will lose with the "dustbowlification" of the western states caused by climate change, which is likely this century in a business-as-usual scenario.

Which is why population still needs to come down as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

The method I just presented to you is site independent.   You can set it up in an abandoned walmart parking lot.  You can service the people who used to come to the walmart, without the need for biofuel shipping...which is still a pollutant and still a problem at some level.  It also saves water. Unlike no till, there's nothing -to- til, and no tractor dragging a drum. The mechanical work is in the form of air lift - easily handled by solar (whereas tillage obviously isn't). The chemical work is nonexistent, preventative management is relied on, instead.

Why would the population need to come down if we can produce more food in less space, locally, with less pollution and greater conservation of water..while providing higher wages for the producers?  

Really try to work that one out.  See if it's more than an ideological sticking point, pessimistic malthusianism that's a holdover from the 19th century intellectual tradition, long demonstrated to be wrong before innovation outstripped the concern if it were right.

Let me put it to you a different way. If we assume that theres a carrying capacity for earth, we make that assumption based on current patterns of use. Alt ag and alt energy can produce much more food and free up nearly two times over again the amount of freshwater available to us. So, if a person tells me that 10bil is earths limit...I'mma contend that it's closer to 30, at least - and that's ignoring future innovation and improvements to existing infrastructure. That's just what we know now.

Our problems are economic..they are not a necessary consequence of population. We already know that we can do this, but it's cheaper and more profitable to do it with a tractor, to do it with oil. Hell, we -could- already feed everyone..we just don't wanna. We -could- arrange for everyone to have access to potable water. We just don't wanna.

I see only two paths to a greener future. We either convince people of the profitability of green tech, or we seize control of the means of production (I prefer this one). In either case, having fewer or no children does nothing, or worse, hurts. Whoop-tee-da, somebody didn't have the kid they didn't wanna have. Saving the world, one unborn human at a time.

Or, honestly, not.

[onlinebiker]

The method I just presented to you is site independent.   You can set it up in an abandoned walmart parking lot.  You can service the people who used to come to the walmart, without the need for biofuel shipping...which is still a pollutant and still a problem at some level.  It also saves water.  Unlike no till, there's nothing -to- til, and no tractor dragging a drum.  The mechanical work is in the form of air lift - easily handled by solar (whereas tillage obviously isn't).  The chemical work is nonexistent, preventative management is relied on, instead.

Why would the population need to come down if we can produce more food in less space, locally, with less pollution and greater conservation of water..while providing higher wages for the producers?  

Really try to work that one out.  See if it's more than an ideological sticking point, pessimistic malthusianism that's a holdover from the 19th century intellectual tradition, long demonstrated to be wrong before innovation outstripped the concern if it were right.

Why do we NEED billions?

How lonely can people be, if millions of neighbors isn't enough?


Its sorta like a 600 lbs guy saying "whassa problem? There's PLENTY of food."

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do we NEED billions?

Why do we NEED one?

How lonely can people be, if millions of neighbors isn't enough?


Its sorta like a 600 lbs guy saying "whassa problem? There's PLENTY of food."

Okay?

My point, and this contests your point earlier but in a way that could at least bring us into a sort of agreement, is that we don't actually -need- to reduce our population, and that in at least some respects the loss of labor hours would negatively impact the intended goal of such a reduction in the first place. Further, that there is a loooooong list of shit we actually do need to do, that actually will effect the change we seek. We're not starving, for example, because there are too many of us. We're starving because too few of us are working in that sector, and the power they have over our food supply is represented in it's profit driven and inhuman distribution. We -could- feed many more of us than there are, and we could do it in an environmentally and socially conscious way.... but it would take greater involvement by more people in order to accomplish it. We need to replace the single producer who can afford to purchase and maintain commercial equipment with many smaller producers, more directly hooked into their markets, making full use of more appropriate technologies.

On a personal note..it's folks like yourself which I wish had more children. They are likely to grow up with this sort of thing in mind (even if they, like you, disagree with me here or there) and would be right at the top on my list of potential labor and startups. The world is swimming with the children of assholes (environmentally and socially) who will grow up to be assholes. My brood could have sorely used your broods help. It's grim out here in alt ag, man, grim!

On a more esoteric note, we might all find reason to become semi-pro gardeners once the robot swarm steals all our jiyobs. Gotta fill the hours of the day.