Expert denial about overpopulation: Thanos was correct

[Sy Borg]

BG, yes, we are alright, Jack.

That is the second time I have attempted to raise the issue of the natural environment to you and each time you have ignored the impacts of natural limits of environment, speaking as if the current situation can stretch on indefinitely without a huge "correction".

Aside from existing issues like pollution, extinctions, ecosystem loss, desertification, reduced freshwater, resource depletion, additional droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, heat waves, sinkholes, landslides and avalanches, what do you make of climate change and the pivotal role it will play?

IMO a more realistic view of the urgency of the situation would allow for a "softer landing", but that appears unlikely. Rather, we intend on diving the surface environment to breaking point and see what happens. Alas, many have a pretty good idea of what will happen.

[Burning ghost]

What exactly do you want to be addressed? Many species will go extinct and more tree wwill be chopped down. I am not ignoring that.

[Sy Borg]

What exactly do you want to be addressed? Many species will go extinct and more tree wwill be chopped down. I am not ignoring that.

You said that the Earth would have no problem accommodating 11 billion and that it would eventually probably stabilise at 9 billion.

Yet the biosphere is not even close to coping with 7.6 billion, and it's only been around this number for a decade.

[Steve3007]

What generally happens is once poverty goes population increases and then levels off. We simply have to do the best we can to reduce poverty and that means population increases prior to levelling off.

Yes, when people get richer they tend to have fewer children but unfortunately another thing that happens once poverty goes is an increase in car driving, hamburger consumption etc.

I think one of the problems with this discussion is defining what it means for a given global human population to be "sustainable". If the population is deemed to be sustainable simply by virtue of the fact that it's not going to go extinct in the forseeable future then clearly, by definition, the bigger the human population the more sustainable it is. But that's not generally what people seem to mean by that word. Most people associate the word with stability over time. Not boom and bust. That means a human population that won't continue to wipe out most other species by, among other things, its need to take the land on which they rely and use it to grow food for their hamburgers to eat. It means not having a human population the majority of which must be kept in a state of poverty to prevent 7+ billion people each owning two cars and going to the McDonalds Drive Thru in them every day. And so on.

In this sense, I agree with Greta that 7+ billion people is already vastly unsustainable. But, at the risk of sounding a tad pessimistic, I am 99% certain that as a species we will not be capable of doing anything at all about it. We will continue to go forth and multiply to try to ensure that our tribe is bigger and more successful than the rival one until the bust comes. C'est la vie.

[Steve3007]

It all seems like we are the victims of natural processes, despite our attempts to rise above.

I'm reminded of chimps, whose communities usually won't grow beyond 100 members. I saw a documentary about a community of twice that size, which is very rare and seemingly happened by chance (amazing story but too long to go into here). However, over time that group showed signs of fracture, the main warning sign being when group members start treating certain others as outsiders. We are a very clever (and controlling) species and worked out ways to suppress those tensions, but the US in recent years has shown that that's a bandaid rather than a cure for division.

Maybe it is that very ability to rise above that is most of the rest of the living world's downfall. If we hadn't been so devilish good at things from agriculture to the suppression of intra-tribal tensions that you mention, then Nature would have continually culled us back to more manageable numbers, as it did before the invention of agriculture. I suppose what we really need is a return to good old fashioned high infant mortality due to disease, hunger and predation. Those, like hard-line Catholics, who advocate trying to have as many kids as the female body can produce should also be advocating that.

[Sy Borg]

It all seems like we are the victims of natural processes, despite our attempts to rise above.

I'm reminded of chimps, whose communities usually won't grow beyond 100 members. I saw a documentary about a community of twice that size, which is very rare and seemingly happened by chance (amazing story but too long to go into here). However, over time that group showed signs of fracture, the main warning sign being when group members start treating certain others as outsiders. We are a very clever (and controlling) species and worked out ways to suppress those tensions, but the US in recent years has shown that that's a bandaid rather than a cure for division.

Maybe it is that very ability to rise above that is most of the rest of the living world's downfall. If we hadn't been so devilish good at things from agriculture to the suppression of intra-tribal tensions that you mention, then Nature would have continually culled us back to more manageable numbers, as it did before the invention of agriculture. I suppose what we really need is a return to good old fashioned high infant mortality due to disease, hunger and predation. Those, like hard-line Catholics, who advocate trying to have as many kids as the female body can produce should also be advocating that.

Yes, disease, hunger and predation - religions facilitators. While that game has played out for millennia, I have the impression that enough people are getting canny enough that that game's days are numbered.

Our ability to solve problems has probably lead us into a false sense of security, as if no problem will be too great. I think that, in terms of the human adventure continuing, perhaps just about all problems can be solved. However, in terms of the other 7+ billion out of the loop, I don't think those problems can be solved at all, nor do I think there is much will to solve them. This appears to be a natural culling mechanism in that, the more people there are, the less value apportioned to a life and in this significant populations can be completely objectified.

[Burning ghost]

What exactly do you want to be addressed? Many species will go extinct and more tree wwill be chopped down. I am not ignoring that.

You said that the Earth would have no problem accommodating 11 billion and that it would eventually probably stabilise at 9 billion.

Yet the biosphere is not even close to coping with 7.6 billion, and it's only been around this number for a decade.

I said the general concensus is that it’ll stabilize between 9 and 11 billion and that the resources are enough on this planet to sustain that many people. The reality is not quite so simple and I never suggested it was. We’re making mistakes, mismanaging and generally not thinking far enough ahead. I’m just not a roll over and die type of person and I don’t think humanity at large is either. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say. We’re pretty creative beings when pushed.

I am not condoning naive optimism I’m just protesting against staunch pessimism that seems to to belittle human life and sketch out ideas about the mass death/culling of human beings.

[Sy Borg]

You said that the Earth would have no problem accommodating 11 billion and that it would eventually probably stabilise at 9 billion.

Yet the biosphere is not even close to coping with 7.6 billion, and it's only been around this number for a decade.

I said the general concensus is that it’ll stabilize between 9 and 11 billion and that the resources are enough on this planet to sustain that many people.

Yes, that's the blatantly wrong part that is the almost ubiquitous "official" view. These demographers ideally would liaise with those in other disciplines whose phenomena will significantly impact on any projections but their employers hired them exactly not to do that, so it seems.

The reality is not quite so simple and I never suggested it was. We’re making mistakes, mismanaging and generally not thinking far enough ahead. I’m just not a roll over and die type of person and I don’t think humanity at large is either. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say. We’re pretty creative beings when pushed.

I am not condoning naive optimism I’m just protesting against staunch pessimism that seems to to belittle human life and sketch out ideas about the mass death/culling of human beings.

Yes, we are creative and we may be able to continue partitioning much of the death and destruction to Africa, SE Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and Central America. However, there is no escape in a global system and wildfires, droughts, floods, storms and the like are no respecters of political boundaries.

The common claim is that we are making mistakes and could do things better. This is also contestable. I cannot think of any time in history when humans have avoided making major mistakes, or been able to quickly tidy up the latency of past errors. Further, large populations significantly add to complexity of governance, making mistakes more likely. So it appears to me that humans are operating as we have always done, with our mistakes just part of the package. Further projections based on an unprecedented change in human attitudes and the way they do things would seem dicey indeed.

I don't think humanity will lay down and die either, rather they will be decimated to an extent not even yet imagined. Without functioning ecosystems over most of the planet - and that is largely locked in for late this century - most people will die no matter what. If we try to turn all of nature into a food bowl we will find ourselves buried in pest species that no longer have predators or significant parasites.

However, pockets of "utopia" in what are now the icy parts of the planet also appear to be inevitable, barring the unexpected. The ultra wealthy causing a fair bit of the problem are now increasingly insulating themselves and their associated people in independent gated communities, protected by the advanced technology, weaponry and barriers.

Europe, Russia and the US will shift north as new land opens up and I expect that China to take the Antarctic from Australia (and the US won't help). Later this century northern China (with 400m people) is expected to start experiencing summer wet bulb temperatures of 35C, fatal for anyone not in air conditioning and those people will need a place to be, and Australia itself is largely too hot and barren and will be better utilised as a mine.

[Arjen]

Well, there's only one thing left to do then.

[Burning ghost]

Greta -

As long as you and others understand that your opinion is just an opinion.

As for death and destruction in those places you are the one advocating such by insisting less people is better! Ironically I know that SE Asia and Africa are doing better than they have in a long, long time.

China was half way through building a dozen coal power plants then stopped production and switched to nuclear costing the government literally billions - they are willing to change when problems of pollution arise and will no doubt be churning out cheap electric vehicles soon enough.

Education is key. Given that education is more eeadily available to more people than ever before I’d say we’re heading in the right direction already. Your blinkered pessimism is just that. I know I cannot reason with so I won’t bother anymore. You don’t agree with the experts so why on earth would you consider anything you say to be “blatantly wrong”? Perhaps the onus lies on you to provide counter evidence that isn’t cherry-picked for convenience? I am sure there are projections out there damning the mainstream predictions so maybe posting some would be useful to the discussion?

[Jklint]

The bottom line is its getting worse which isn't just due to overpopulation but continued mismanagement on a global scale. Even if some places are improving while most are not or actively deteriorating, collectively it wouldn't bode well for any region on earth.

[Burning ghost]

The bottom line is its getting worse which isn't just due to overpopulation but continued mismanagement on a global scale. Even if some places are improving while most are not or actively deteriorating, collectively it wouldn't bode well for any region on earth.

I agree. I am simply saying “overpopulation” isn’t a direct cause of environmental deterioration. Neither was I suggesting that it doesn’t impact ecosystems. I seemed to have gotten caught up trying to explain that the earth CAN sustain 9-11 billion people. It is perfectly feasible although I am not saying it is practically an easy feat.

Talk of “it’s not sustainable now” is utter nonsense because we’re alive and breathing. It is basically like saying it is impossible to have more than 6 billion people on the planet when we already have more than that. Makes no sense, and saying “but it is not sustainable future” is complete gibberish too given that technological advances and economics policies don’t simply stand still to play out some bizarre prediction about this or that.

It is worth remembering that starvation in Africa was drastically reduced due to genetically modified crops. Unfortunately we have to face up to this being a problem for developing/poorer countries who wish to get their hands on cheaper food. It is a big problem and free international trade from these countries could lead to overfarming the land and the destruction of ecosystems. One solution would be for more developed bread baskets to increase the efficiency of food production and export them to neighbouring countries at reduced rates in order to lessen damage to the environment.

There are many, many complications involved due to how trade functions and how interests of individuals, and individual countries, are shifted by the political climate.

To quote John Stuart Mill:

Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

- from “On Liberty”

I’m all for pessimism, but not completely for it at the expense of finding solutions instead of lulling in some vapid nihilistic sense of self-righteousness bemoaning everyone and everything but ourselves.

Greta -

Forgive me if I sound harsh here! I’m not ignorant enough to pretend there aren’t problems yet I won’t roll over and die because many stupidities of humanity upset me. There is enough good in humanity to see us through. If not then I’ll still do my bit to tip the scales so there is in any minute way I seem fit.

This forum is ONE minute way and I may well be encouraging the opposite. Baby steps

[Sy Borg]

The bottom line is its getting worse which isn't just due to overpopulation but continued mismanagement on a global scale. Even if some places are improving while most are not or actively deteriorating, collectively it wouldn't bode well for any region on earth.

I agree. I am simply saying “overpopulation” isn’t a direct cause of environmental deterioration. Neither was I suggesting that it doesn’t impact ecosystems. I seemed to have gotten caught up trying to explain that the earth CAN sustain 9-11 billion people. It is perfectly feasible although I am not saying it is practically an easy feat.

Would you please advise of a time when a large human society managed the natural environment sustainably? BG, given that you are dreaming this little dream of Turning the Titanic around when it's a 200 metres from the iceberg, so to speak.

Your problem is that humans insist on behaving like humans. They are not mismanaging natural resources. They are doing what they have done ever since forming the first large human societies - they are using up the resources with very little management or regard for sustainability. That was something white man might have learned from indigenous people but it didn't happen, thus today's situation.

The warnings have been out for years. The growing problems of climate change have been obvious for years. Yet humans still continue with business as usual and they surely will continue to do so until they cannot. By that time people in poor countries will die in numbers people will struggle to even believe, and there will be a blame game to avoid facing the real issue - there are simply too many people, we can't control any of it any more and whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

Education is most important to soften what looks to be a very "hard landing" I remember some strong statements made to that effect in the 70s, and 80s, and 90s, and 00s, and now. Yet progress in this area has been extremely slow due to cultural inertia. That's the other issue with overpopulation, the larger the population the harder it is regulate resistance to change that involves sacrifice is harder to overcome due to divisions, with the lack of a sense of "us" less pronounced. Also, sheer size makes change much harder just as an ocean liner is harder to turn around than a yacht.

I'm afraid, BG, it is you who will need to stump up the evidence that a "hard landing" with climate change at this stage is still avoidable (the "soft landing" scenario involves keeping the rise under 2C, and that figure is now certain to be not only surpassed but smashed). ALL of the credible data points that way, so let's see your non-cherrypicked evidence. A hard landing will preclude supporting anything even close to 11 billion people.

The demographers with whom you side are the ones out on a limb here. How can anyone validly make future population predictions without taking climate change, record extinction rates and ecosystem loss into consideration?

[Burning ghost]

Greta -

I guess we disagree. I don’t need to provide evidence for the existence of 7 billions humans and a rising population. I don’t think I need to provide evidence that we have enough food to feed everyone EASILY at the moment (given as you accepted this fact). What evidence do you have? How do you define “mismanagement”? Something like how the theory of elephants destroying large swathes of jungle was “mismanagement”?

I expect to live another 60+ years so I’ll see for myself. Like I said MANY predicted the downfall of human civilization due to the onset of thr industrial revolution. They wouldn’t have dreamed that we’d get to where we are now and I a pretty damn sure if you’re around in 60+ years (or even 20+ years) you’ll be saying the same thing having been proven wrong by the fact of the time you live in.

What on earth makes you think they are saying they ARE taking everything into account?? I’m baffled? They state facts based on the variables they can predict (birth rates, food consumption and such). Maybe a plague will wipe out 33% of humans next year? Who’s to say? I don’t think you understand my point and I don’t think you want to look beyond yours. I’ve stated quite clearly there are issues. I have also stated quie clearly what these “experts” are saying. You disagree because they’ve not added either technological advances or climate change? Most of them DO mention but they stick to what they know and warn of the dangers rather than do pure guesswork.

Anyway, enjoy your dystopian existence

[Sy Borg]

BG, I'm not sure what I can do to get you to take climate change, extinctions and ecosystem breakdown seriously.

The only acknowledgement by you so far are "there are issues" and that any projection that takes climate change into account is "guesswork", while that which discounts the most important factor completely is treated by you as more valid. In doing so you ignore the vast research into the area.

Your Pollyanns-ish faith in human "good" is irrelevant. Certainly, humans have been an extraordinary species, but they are not as extraordinary as the the Earth that spawned them, and the reality check is coming. The carrying capacity of the Earth's surface is finite - certainly not capable of carrying 11 billion without catastrophes beyond anything imaginable (because, as you say, precise predictions are difficult).

In context I define "mismanagement" as what large groups of humans have routinely done for millennia. Demographers seem to define it as an anomaly that's soon to be corrected.

The October IPCC report concluded that if the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions continue, temperatures will rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2040. In order to avoid, this the IPCC found greenhouse pollution must be reduced by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and completely, that is, by 100 percent, by 2050. Coal use, currently accounting for 40 percent of electrical production, would have to drop to nearly one percent. Renewable energy sources, currently supplying 20 percent of electrical production, would have to more than triple. The effort required to transform the world's economy, the report stated, would be so great “there is no documented historical precedent.”

Evidence? https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?h ... tion&btnG=

Another 100 forthcoming if you wish :lol:

I expect to live another 60+ years so I’ll see for myself. Like I said MANY predicted the downfall of human civilization due to the onset of thr industrial revolution. They wouldn’t have dreamed that we’d get to where we are now and I a pretty damn sure if you’re around in 60+ years (or even 20+ years) you’ll be saying the same thing having been proven wrong by the fact of the time you live in.

I think of this particular fantasy of yours as "eternal BAU", like an alcoholic who keeps drinking because his liver has not yet failed. Nothing too bad has happened yet so let's pretend that will always be the case.

I am personally not predicting the end of human civilisation, I am predicting utter catastrophes for the poor and decimation of the middle classes. In terms of natural selection (which will come into play when environmental factors bite hard enough), the "fittest" look to be the wealthy, the controllers of energy, resources and weapons.

If you are alive in 60 years' time you will already have had my words ringing in your ears for years, and you might wonder why you couldn't see what was so obvious at the time.

I don't think of the future as dystopian, though. You could say that the dinosaurs experienced dystopia 60 million years ago as they faded into the fossil record, but really it was just the biosphere re-forming, and now it's re-forming again.

In the future (barring major surprises) I expect that those who are well protected to do fine, pushing forward with ever greater advancements and means of improving longevity. There will be some disruption, requiring more emphasis on defences, but there will remain safe and fertile places for the privileged few in the far north and south for some time to come (if the wildfires that decimate polar forests when the temperature rises don't cause too many long term problems).