Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 23, 2025, 3:45 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The world's population should be at most 50 million.
#61
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 10, 2018 at 12:11 pm)Khemikal Wrote: 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.

You seem to be saying we all just need to eat salads all the time and live as simply as possible. Then, poof, our population problems will disappear.

Well, yes and no. Yes, that would help a lot. But no, that won't work. People won't do it.
Reply
#62
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
No, I'm not saying that at all, lol.  What I am saying is that the insistence that we need to reduce our population is based solely..on the insistence that we need to reduce our population.  It's not actually a fact. Further, the people being pointed to as a good start are not the source of problem we seek to solve with such a reduction in the first place...hilariously, they are our most credible solution to that problem.

My example only shows that in some post fossil fuel future a productive system of ag has 60 weekly hours of labor requirement per .12 acres compared to 22 yearly per acre.  There's no clearer way to show the utility of living breathing humans, than that. It's nice that they get paid (a hell of alot) more, too.

Lets put that into context. One man farming 100 acres of mixed veg (conventionally) is, maybe, using 2,200 labor hours. 20 5 acre farms (the most you can reasonably operate solo without fossil fuel based equipment and inputs) are not only more productive because of their intensive management....they are providing 20 incomes with many more labor hours, as opposed to the one. So tell me why, if we had more people operating smaller, more intensively managed farms..we would need (or even could) reduce the pop? We'd have more food, and we'd need more people to make it, but the rate of yield increase outstrips the rate of population increase twice over at a minimum. Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that depopulation would reduce the economic incentives that lead to starvation.

It really is just something that some malcontent a hundred years ago thought up in his feverbrain while thinking of how to deal with the problem of the filthy poors.

We could continue, accepting that even in the greener future some application of fossil fuel is still acceptable.  Staple grains, for example.  Productivity plays out differently for staple grains.  The larger the block the more efficient the planting and the less labor hours required.  So, whereas dividing the globes vegetable production into smaller farms would produce more food, more available food, more affordable food, and better wages for producers......dividing up staple crop plantings has the opposite effect, and we need them, no matter how many of us there are.  At present, only half of the worlds (poorly utilized) staple cropland is being used to feed people, and again, we already have more than enough to feed everyone.  Limiting use to this application would be both reasonable and highly effective, as most of the footprint of staple crops doesn't come from their production - but their transport and marketing.

So..tell me, whats the carrying capacity of the earth, again? Why do we -need- to reduce the pop?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#63
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
Quote:Why do we -need- to reduce the pop?

Because we’re using and/or destroying the earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished or replaced.

Quote:So tell me why, if we had more people operating smaller, more intensively managed farms..we would need (or even could) reduce the pop?

Because we’re using and/or destroying the earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished or replaced.

Quote:there's absolutely nothing to suggest that depopulation would reduce the economic incentives that lead to starvation.

At 50 million subsistence farming would be a relative breeze.

Quote:So..tell me, whats the carrying capacity of the earth, again?

The OP already gave a number: 50,000,000
Reply
#64
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 10, 2018 at 5:07 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote:
Quote:Why do we -need- to reduce the pop?

Because we’re using and/or destroying the earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished or replaced.
Wouldn't a more direct and effective approach, be to stop doing that....?  How is reducing the population going to change that, when a minority of the population are the ones doing it?  Are we going to target them for reduction..because, if so, they've already done it themselves.

Quote:At 50 million subsistence farming would be a relative breeze.
It wasn't the last time we were at 50 million..but, here again, you're telling me it would be easier if we just let the pop wither, but that's not a reason to let the pop wither that I can work out.  Yes, if a bunch of people were disappeared alot of things would get easier...but, ofc, it would be easier for the remainder to be super polluters..as well. All that nasty fighting the impoverished natives over their precious resources would be a thing of the past - because the natives are gone. Climate change impacting some specific region? No problem, ghost town, there's nobody there. YAY!

Success?

Quote:The OP already gave a number: 50,000,000

Not sure if trolling or serious.

heres a diff way to look at our current issue. We're not depleting our resources faster than they -can be- replenished..and we literally have more fossil fuels than we could ever afford to burn. We'll kill ourselves off by using them if we really tried to run them out..before they ran out...and we're just not trying to foster the replenishment of those resources which we could, and should, be more effective managers of. Properly managed, earths carrying capacity is practically limitless. Other, very strong pressures which we know exist and we know reduce both overall pop and rates of reproduction, will kick in before we run out of food, space, or water..here. Long, long before.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#65
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
Quote:Properly managed, earths carrying capacity is practically limitless

I can’t have a meaningful discussion with someone who would type such a thing.
Reply
#66
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
Sure you can.  Can you tell me what limiting factor the earth is supposed to present to our population?  Or lets suppose that it does, even though we don't know what that is but do know that it must allow a number far greater than our current population.  Is there some specific reason to assume that this unknown limiting factor will affect us before a whole range of known limiting factors does?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#67
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 7, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: I recently saw a program where a population expert said the present population of 7.4 billion had overshot the carrying capacity of the planet by 50%.  We are only sustaining our population through burning non-renewable fossil fuels and otherwise mining our natural resources.  He also said that the sustainable carrying capacity varies with the affluence of the inhabitants.  The Earth could sustain 15 billion living at very low levels of affluence, but only 1.5 billion at American standards.

Adding to the information I posted above, this population expert did not arrive at these numbers arbitrarily, but did so after studying exactly how much food, water, land, and other limited resources are required to maintain living standards for populations with different levels of affluence.

And don't forget that with climate change, we are likely to reduce the present carrying capacity of the planet through increased temperatures, floods, droughts, extreme storms, and sea levels.
Reply
#68
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 10, 2018 at 10:28 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(October 7, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: I recently saw a program where a population expert said the present population of 7.4 billion had overshot the carrying capacity of the planet by 50%.  We are only sustaining our population through burning non-renewable fossil fuels and otherwise mining our natural resources.  He also said that the sustainable carrying capacity varies with the affluence of the inhabitants.  The Earth could sustain 15 billion living at very low levels of affluence, but only 1.5 billion at American standards.

Adding to the information I posted above, this population expert did not arrive at these numbers arbitrarily, but did so after studying exactly how much food, water, land, and other limited resources are required to maintain living standards for populations with different levels of affluence.

And don't forget that with climate change, we are likely to reduce the present carrying capacity of the planet through increased temperatures, floods, droughts, extreme storms, and sea levels.

IOW, basing his estimate on current patterns of consumption and current practices, over some undefined but long timescale, and specifically excluding the viability of any other metric.  Way to aim for the bottom!

That's the trouble with doom and gloomers.  Yes, we -are-...currently, sustaining our population through burning fossil fuels.  We do not have to, and alternative methods also happen to have greater productivity in important areas...so his metrics would have to change to reflect that..if he were discussing the carrying capacity of earth....instead of the carrying capacity of a particular methodology. An important distinction, don't you think?

The whole pop reduction thing is only superficial plausible. The claim at the end, that the earth could only sustain 1.5 at american standards..is rank garbage. If we more equitably distributed all resources on earth..every single person would live -at american standards- today..with less productive and dirtier techs than we could already employ in a greener future. More baseless pessimism.

Compounding that issue, is that affluence appears to be used as a euphemism for pollution. Couldn't we suggest that we arrange for a less destructive manifestation of affluence, before we float the idea of sterilizing the poors? Is it necessarrily true that to be affluent is to have a massive carbon footprint? In a word, no.

(as a minor but important correction..climate change is not a punishment from the gods, it doesn't have uniformly bad effects. It will open up alot of newly productive cropland and change what crops a person can grow. I mean, if the train really has no brakes..take solace in the fact that we'll be able to produce chocolate in the US, start to finish, someday Wink )
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#69
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 10, 2018 at 10:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Couldn't we suggest that we arrange for a less destructive manifestation of affluence, before we float the idea of sterilizing the poors?

I for one never floated the idea of sterilizing poor people. If I remember correctly, they tried and failed applying such a policy in India. China's one-child policy was much more effective, but I'm not even suggesting that's a good idea. I mentioned that education for girls has been the most effective way to bring population under control, and access to contraception is just as important.

You are discussing population as if it's not a local problem. Ask people in central Africa, India, and China whether it's a problem.

So let me think. Whose opinions on such issues should I trust, a population expert's or the random internet guy's?

Realism is not pessimism if there exist reasonable and timely solutions for impending problems.
Reply
#70
RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
(October 11, 2018 at 5:44 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(October 10, 2018 at 10:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Couldn't we suggest that we arrange for a less destructive manifestation of affluence, before we float the idea of sterilizing the poors?

I for one never floated the idea of sterilizing poor people.  If I remember correctly, they tried and failed such a policy in India.  China's one-child policy was much more effective, but I'm not even suggesting that's a good idea.  I mentioned that education for girls has been the most effective way to bring population under control, and access to contraception is just as important.

You are discussing population as if it's not a local problem.  Ask people in central Africa, India, and China whether it's a problem.

So let me think.  Whose opinions on such issues should I trust, a population expert's or the random internet guy's?

Realism is not pessimism if there exist reasonable and timely solutions for impending problems.
That you can find malthusian nuts on the internet who are experts in something is entirely unsurprising to me. It doesn't change the fact that the basis for the position is non factual.   

Overpopulation is not a thing unless your only metric is "too many people" full stop- because there aren't "too many people" to eat.  There aren't "too many people" to have water.  There aren't "too many people" to have land.   Our population doesn't grow exponentially, and half of the world's people live under pop replacement rate. The gains we've been making aren't even fertility gains. Fertility has been decreasing ( it's been halved since the 50s). They're survival rate gains.

I think you need to be less credulous of anyone who claims authority or expertise and then lays into some comment on overpop and the carrying cap of the earth that a rando on the internet can competently criticize. What the man is saying, is that half of us could live like the worst few percent of us...if the other half were disappeared..and while that may be true (I doubt it)..assuming it were, it's meaningless..because no one in their right mind would suggest that we disappear half our people so that the remainder can continue to be super-polluters. I say no one in their right mind..mind. Wink

Can there be "too many people" in this local area...because we can't get enough food in here? Sure..but that's not a pop problem, it's a distribution problem. It's not like we -couldn't- get them food and water. We just.....don't..........wanna. Overpop pessimism masks that fact as though starvation (for example) were a necessary consequence of having alot of people in some place - which any large -functioning- city attests to as complete fiction. That's a problem for city planners, not population planners.

The problems we face are not population problems, as convenient as that excuse may be for us.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Population boom lifesagift 58 12744 December 18, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
Star Milky Way Could Contain 100 Million Planets with Complex Life MountainsWinAgain 3 1460 June 1, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  120 Million Years Ago...not 6,000 Minimalist 4 2781 March 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)