Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
Ignoring all political factors, I believe that overpopulation is real. Whilst it is true that the planet has enough physical space for billions more people than exist right now, it does not have the natural resources to support billions more.
Focusing on a singular issue that faces global civilization that highlights what I mean - food.
Current food production is heavily reliant on fossil fuel derived fertilizers. It’s commonly accepted that oil production will peak and eventually decline if it has not done so already. Some argue that it has, some say it is imminent. Nonetheless, eventually oil production will become exponentially more expensive as demand increases and supply shrinks and thus anything that relies on oil derived fuels or products will also become more costly. Global farming is reliant on oil derived fuels such as diesel and petroleum for the tilling, planting, fertilizing, spraying of insecticides and harvesting of crops. Not to mention transportation, processing, packaging and preparation. Natural gas, the most important input for the production of fertilizers is required during the Haber-Bosch process. Natural gas is also a finite fossil fuel subject to the same limitations as oil.
If we then look at the macro landscape we also learn that top soil, the soil that crops are grown in is being eroded by constant farming processes, poor land management and natural processes. It is estimated that at the current rate of erosion there could be no top soil left globally within 60 years. If I remember correctly, topsoil is being eroded approximately ten times faster than it can be replaced.
Now there are arguments to be made that we could reduce wastage, reduce demand and manage land better. Doing these things could buy extra time for a static or shrinking population.
Anyway, the point is that the global population rising means that there is more demand for food. Our ability to produce more food to satisfy the extra demand of a growing population is being reduced due to the factors I’ve mentioned above and these are only a subset of a far greater set of issues we face.
The idea that we can continue to grow the population further and that the planet can support this indefinitely is not reasonable. There are limits to growth in finite systems.
Population growth means that there are more people that both want and need a slice of the pie. The problem is there’s only a limited amount of pie available. We can slice that pie into ever smaller pieces and we can even redistribute the pie that exists more equitably. This will help keep people fed in the short term but not in the long term.
The problem is that the pie is going to shrink and the baker isn’t going to be able to get enough ingredients to make more. Eventually the pie will be gone.
In our analogy eventually there will be no pie to go around and everyone goes home hungry.
This means that we end up with a predicament without a solution that I am aware of.
It is far more likely that globally populations will continue to rise until we overshoot our constrained resources. Once that happens human population levels will drop, whether there is intervention or not.
What do you feel about overpopulation?
What do you feel about overpopulation?
That it really isn’t a thing. The issue isn’t that there are too many people, it’s that the resources we have are being poorly used.
If we (globally) ate a more sustainable diet, we would need significantly less resources to make the same about of food, or, we could use similar resources to make 4 times as much food.
There is also the fact that populations in most countries have slowed down significantly, everywhere with a value of <2 means that the birth-rate is “sub replacement” aka, shrinking.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg/1920px-Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg.pngDepending on which model you look at, and who interprets the data, the global population starts shrinking at 2080, 2100, or 2150.
But those are projections, and you never really know if all of a sudden people in the Americas, Euro, and Asia all start having 4 kids.I agree with your points fully, just not the assertion that it doesn’t exist.
It’s not a hard line we cross and then are categorized as “overpopulated,” it is the general idea that we have outstripped our resources with the current systems that we have in place and is unsustainable.
Maybe we science our way out of it like some other problems, and maybe we don’t. We can’t really say until the time comes to do so. That being said, I don’t see a net positive in burning through every resource we can for the sole goal of having more people. Are you able to articulate why more people using more resources is inherently better?
But what we can say is that our resources would inarguably last a hell of a lot longer if we had half as many people. And no, this isn’t some genocidal bullshit I’m espousing. I’m absolutely not saying that we should kill people to get there.
Removed by mod
Okay, and the supporting evidence for that statement is…
Okay, and the supporting evidence or references for any of the claims you made in your post is…?
Which part specifically?
Any time you make a claim.
Overpopulation is not a myth, nor is it imminent. It’s already here and it is apolitical.
Can you prove where it exists? Can you show that it is somehow not political?
it does not have the natural resources to support billions more.
Can you show this?
It’s commonly accepted that oil production will peak and eventually decline if it has not done so already.
Who accepts this, and why do they?
Nonetheless, eventually oil production will become exponentially more expensive as demand increases and supply shrinks and thus anything that relies on oil derived fuels or products will also become more costly.
In a world with more and more countries placing bans on ICE vehicles and high-pollution power and heating generation, what proof do you have that demand will increase?
Natural gas, the most important input for the production of fertilizers
That depends on the fertilizer. Potash doesn’t care about natural gas, lots of sources of Phosphorus, potassium, and nitorgen don’t care about natural gas. What about hydroponics? It also doesn’t care about Natural gas.
It is estimated that at the current rate of erosion there could be no top soil left globally within 60 years.
Who estimates this? What is the rate of erosion?
topsoil is being eroded approximately ten times faster than it can be replaced.
See above
I am combining your questions with the statements they question for easier reading, I hope that’s okay!
Can you show that Earth does not have the natural resources to support billions more?
So… this is a broad question and there are many ways to answer it. For good generalized reading, I’d check out United Nations Environment Programme and their 2012 report called A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity which have their own citations. The consensus of studies say the Earth’s capacity caps out at 8 billion or so with substantially fewer studies landing on either side.
Climate change is also affecting water availability worldwide and is also expected to get worse. In my province (in Canada) alone, there is expected to be water shortages this summer and they are already warning us well in advance to conserve.
Food? Yeah, maybe we could produce enough. All it would take would be a complete gargantuan shift in what people will be willing to eat (insect proteins) combined with massive shifts to sustainable farming, but it could be feasible. Another thing to consider is that food grown now has reduced vitamin and mineral content; as you probably know, food may not be enough. You need vitamins and minerals too, and if those reduce, you must eat more (or supplement, which is a sketchy science in and of itself) to compensate.
There is more on this topic if you like, but the top two should suffice to demonstrate that what I said is accurate.
Who accepts that oil production will peak and eventually decline if it has not done so already?
The fact that oil is not infinite says this. It’s an odd question you ask because every single extraction or product peaks at some point. That’s just how things work. Peak Oil is commonly referenced, it’s only the WHEN that is theorized.
In a world with more and more countries placing bans on ICE vehicles and high-pollution power and heating generation, what proof do you have that demand will increase?
I believe that demand will not increase in for the public in relation to now, however demand will increase from certain industrial consumers because the supply will shrink and there is no alternative for them. All part of Peak Oil, but to quote Wikipedia which answers your question in the second paragraph…
Peak oil is very closely related to the concept of oil depletion; while global petroleum reserves are finite, the limiting factor is not whether the oil exists but whether it can be extracted economically at a given price. Historically, it was theorized that a secular decline in oil production would be caused by eventual depletion of known reserves, though more recently a new competing theory has emerged, that reductions in oil demand may reduce the price of oil relative to the cost of extraction, as might be induced to reduce carbon emissions. Or, demand may be reduced from demand destruction triggered by persistently high oil prices.
What about hydroponics? It also doesn’t care about Natural gas.
Yes, there are other alternatives. I never stated there weren’t. They also aren’t used nearly as often. If we used crop rotation and greener alternatives (and had less people requiring fewer crops), we could easily stop a lot of the damage that nitrogen fertilizers do.
Who estimates that at the current rate of erosion there could be no top soil left globally within 60 years.? What is the rate of erosion?
Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates this. Here is an article from the UN speaking about it.
The rate of erosion changes on average by ~1.4 t ha−1 yr−1 between countries as per this paper. As you’d expect, some countries (and areas within countries) are worse than others depending on practices.
Hopefully that answers everything! If you’d like to discuss in more detail, I’d love to carry on. I’m completely okay with being challenged on things.
Removed by mod
When I was in school we learned about Malthus and his hypothesis that the rising population of the industrial revolution would lead to famine as if he was mistaken because it didn’t come to pass.
But he wasn’t wrong. I’m pulling this from memory, so take with a grain of salt: the 19th century British (and probably others, and their slaves) were scouring the world’s tiny islands for bird poo to support crops in their colonies all over the world, but had reached basically peak guano and were facing globally reduced yields. Malthus presented his warning to the Royal Society and it was taken up by Haber and Bosch in Germany, and they developed the commercial method of fixing nitrogen from the air (and fossil fuel) and basically replaced the dwindling bird poo reserves with industrial fertilizer we use in ever increasing quantity today.
There’s no reason to think we can go on like this forever as using fossil fuels is no more sustainable than spreading a thousand years worth of seagull droppings on each year’s crops. Never mind everything else the crops need.
So I think the question is how many different ways do you want to scrape or dig or burn or poison every last part of the globe before you just decide to work on the other side of the equation?
Only problem is, stocks don’t go brrrrr
I agree with you. I have another write up I’ll post some day about humans and how we have a problematic habit of getting good at things, and then getting WAY TOO good at things. As much as many here want to blame things like that solely on capitalism, it’s happened throughout every major reign in human history with the issue only accelerating at our current stage of technological development.
Things can only be made sustainable until we use up all of our resources in those areas so many times.
Removed by mod
I’ll make the devil’s advocate argument: The mid to long-term problem is underpopulation: Pretty much every industrialized country has seen plummeting birthrates as they industrialize and become more urban - some countries like Canada and the US are managing to make a patchwork solution out of immigration, but as the world as a whole industrializes there will eventually be no more ‘immigration solution.’
Essentially the long and the short of it is in a rural setting the kids could help out and the farm, in a smaller city space, at least, isn’t at a premium and kids can still go play outside. In a big city space, and the cost of living in general is at a premium and city infrastructure can be outright hostile toward kids. (If you like at regional birth rates within a country they generally support what I’m asserting. Birth rates in Seoul are something crazy like 0.5 children per woman).
A lot of developed countries have tried to encourage people to have kids but none have really done enough to succeed in reversing the trends, and these have been ongoing - accelerating for decades now. Worse yet the further in you get the worse it gets. (Ex: If birth rates are 1 per woman and half your women have hit menopause then every remaining woman needs to have 2 children just to get into break even territory).
All of this is also not mentioning things like generational knowledge etc. that’s lost by people who don’t have kids - in many cases that could amount to a lot of useful information that’s just never passed on. This also doesn’t touch on the more immediate problem of the younger generations in many countries being overly burdened with caring for a historically unprecedented quantity of elders. And we’re not even getting into the economic effects of basically not having a young population to drive consumption. The whole thing is a mess and it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
I only see underpopulation as an issue because of the extreme lack of forethought put into economies in those countries. They originally implemented everything based on infinite growth because it’s the simplest option. Just like in every single industry on the planet, however, infinite growth is completely unsustainable.
The economy needs to be made more cyclical, but it’s going to piss off a few billionaires in the process, which I’m sure we are all okay with. At the same time, implementing universal basic income would assist with this. A falling birth rate, and sustainable immigration combined with UBI and some re-implementation of systems would solve scads of societal issues including housing and many environmental problems.
And generational information has never been easier to pass on than now, we just have to make a few easy adjustments.
I should add that, in all fairness, the last, what 60-80 years have been an exception relative to the entire history of humanity where we were having 6-10-15 kids (higher mortality rates but still). I really think this being a problem has caught society as a whole off-guard.
Also keep in mind that policymaking from the 80s, 90s etc. when it was really becoming apparent this was an issue was still not as, how shall I say, scientific as these days (because an adult of that time in power would have been educated in the 30s-50s). Plus, governments have always been bad for “kick it down the road, it’s a later problem” looks.
