Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Newme]

Your sweeping dismissal of facts told me you mislabeled it “conspiracy theory” to feel justified in not addressing facts you may not know what to do with.

I gave you the proper arguments to show that the facts point in a different direction than what you're claiming. Instead of dealing with them, you only resort to the "this-looks-suspicious" rhetoric that is typical of conspiracy theorists.

Again, ad hominem attacks just tell me I’m discussing with someone who is not engaging reasonably.

[TommyJoe]

The sub-heading of one of the items you link to - The Overpopulation Myth - says what I have been saying, that it's not our numbers that are the direct problem, but our consumption:

The idea that growing human numbers will destroy the planet is nonsense. But over-consumption will.

But population certainly affects and exacerbates consumption, so (over)population is a problem, but perhaps not the problem.

A fair point, but let's keep in mind that there is not a proportional relation between consumption levels and population numbers. As the data shows, people from Hong Kong, the US and the UK consume per capita 865%, 855% and 502% more, respectively, than people from India. So, blaming Indians for high consumption and overpopulation doesn't make much sense. If over-consumption is the problem, then one must look at those that demand more resources.

North America and Europe are also on top of users per capita of arable land: 262% and 176% more than the Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively, as well as 458% and 308% more than South Asia.

Who produces and exports more agricultural products? The United States on top, 1.63 times the numbers of China. Among the world's ten biggest, 8 are in North America and Europe, with a size of exports in a proportion of 4:1, that is, 80% against 20% of China and Brazil.

An who demands more agricultural products? Again, the United States on top, Germany on second. Among the world's ten biggest, 8 are in North America and Europe, the other 2 are Japan and China. North America and Europe with a size of imports in a proportion of 4:1, that is, 80% against 20% of China and Japan.

Want to blame the over-consumers? I might agree. It's far better than giving breath to the overpopulation narrative historically associated with the eugenics movement.

You’re right—overpopulation isn’t the main issue when high consumption in wealthier countries is the bigger factor. Focusing on per capita consumption and resource demand from places like the US and Europe highlights where the real problem lies.

[Sy Borg]

That's why the west is bringing in record numbers of migrants - to boost world consumption, which is fabulous for corporations.

The real problem is there are too many people for sustainability. It is very clear now that the biosphere is changing - as it does. The old nature of plants and animals is largely being removed and replaced with deserts and technological hubs that will increasingly provide for growing human numbers in lieu of nature.
This century, all large and medium sized mammals will be gone. In time, most trees will be gone. Most grasslands will be gone.

This is a new phase of the world, where a subset of humans will largely transcend biology. I love animals and nature generally, but the changing Earth doesn't care about such things. Humans are agents of change. Two billion years ago the agent of change was cyanobacteria. 250 million years ago, it was volcanoes. 60 million years ago the agent of change was an asteroid. Now it's humans.

Goodbye nature. You were both terrible and magnificent, and you will be missed.

[Fried Egg]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates. Most countries in Europe and east Asia are at well bellow replacement levels for instance. There's a massive lag factor as a population could still be growing whilst the birthrate starts falling. We see this with the average age of a population rising significantly.

Apparently, the replacement rate for a population is about 2.1 children per woman. That's for the population to remain stable (neither grow or shrink). Consider the birthrates in the following examples:

South Korea: 0.78
China: is 1.18
Japan: is 1.26
Germany: 1.46
UK: 1.57
USA: 1.66
France: 1.79

Furthermore, when one looks at the trends, the birthrates are on a downward trend almost everywhere.

People might well regard declining populations as a good thing but it does post significant problems in it's own right. For one thing, it places a larger and larger burden on the younger working (and dwindling) population.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates.

This is a positive trend, of course. But I suspect that the level of over-population — more accurately, over-consumption — is too high for our falling birth rates to correct in any sensible timescale? My opinion (and it is just that — I have no special expertise) is that our current 8,000,000,000 should fall to something like 80,000,000 before our population reaches 'sustainable' levels. That will take a looonnnggg time, I think.

[Fried Egg]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates.

This is a positive trend, of course. But I suspect that the level of over-population — more accurately, over-consumption — is too high for our falling birth rates to correct in any sensible timescale? My opinion (and it is just that — I have no special expertise) is that our current 8,000,000,000 should fall to something like 80,000,000 before our population reaches 'sustainable' levels. That will take a looonnnggg time, I think.

I disagree with the hypothesis that there is anything intrinsically sustainable (or not) at any given population level. It depends on the knowledge and technological level of the population in question.

Also I think most problems arise from rapid changes to the population size, whether increasing or decreasing. The last thing we should be hoping for is a rapid decline in population.

[Sy Borg]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates.

This is a positive trend, of course. But I suspect that the level of over-population — more accurately, over-consumption — is too high for our falling birth rates to correct in any sensible timescale? My opinion (and it is just that — I have no special expertise) is that our current 8,000,000,000 should fall to something like 80,000,000 before our population reaches 'sustainable' levels. That will take a looonnnggg time, I think.

I disagree with the hypothesis that there is anything intrinsically sustainable (or not) at any given population level. It depends on the knowledge and technological level of the population in question.

Also I think most problems arise from rapid changes to the population size, whether increasing or decreasing. The last thing we should be hoping for is a rapid decline in population.

Actually, world population is rapidly increasing. A nine million net increase in population this year. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Note that a reduced percentage of a larger number can result in a higher number than a high percentage of a smaller overall number. It's basic math, something philosophers are not known to be very good at (aside from logicians). Certainly idealists tend to not understand, or care about, mathematical angles.

The world is not the west. The west is running below replacement while Africa and the ME are far above replacement levels, eg. Niger has 6.64 children per woman.

[Fried Egg]

Yes, the global population is still rising but, as I said, there is a big lag between changes to fertility rates and actual population levels. The global fertility rate has halved over the last 70 years. All expectations/predictions are for this trend to continue. From the Lancet:

Over the coming decades, global fertility is predicted to decline even further, reaching a TFR of around 1.8 in 2050, and 1.6 in 2100—well below the replacement level. By 2100, only six of 204 countries and territories (Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan) are expected to have fertility rates exceeding 2.1 births per female. In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are even predicted to fall below one child per female.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates.

This is a positive trend, of course. But I suspect that the level of over-population — more accurately, over-consumption — is too high for our falling birth rates to correct in any sensible timescale? My opinion (and it is just that — I have no special expertise) is that our current 8,000,000,000 should fall to something like 80,000,000 before our population reaches 'sustainable' levels. That will take a looonnnggg time, I think.

I disagree with the hypothesis that there is anything intrinsically sustainable (or not) at any given population level.

Agreed. The bottom line, for our world, is the global total of what we humans have consumed, not our population.

It depends on the knowledge and technological level of the population in question.

What "it depends" on is what we have already said clearly: total consumption. All else is secondary. Not 'wrong' or 'mistaken', or anything like that. Just secondary.

Also I think most problems arise from rapid changes to the population size, whether increasing or decreasing. The last thing we should be hoping for is a rapid decline in population.

Is anyone hoping for a "rapid" change in our numbers? Are you warning against something that we aren't scared of, or aren't yet scared of, and/or maybe should be? I'm not quite sure where this came from, or where it's going...?

[Fried Egg]

What "it depends" on is what we have already said clearly: total consumption. All else is secondary. Not 'wrong' or 'mistaken', or anything like that. Just secondary.

If, by "total consumption", you mean the consumption of the worlds resources (i.e. using them up), then yes, I agree. But not if you mean the total resources that humanity consumes, which with the right knowledge and application of technology, might potentially grow unbounded. That is because the knowledge and technology that is available to us determine how effectively we can consume the earth's resources, as well as even replenishing it.

Is anyone hoping for a "rapid" change in our numbers? Are you warning against something that we aren't scared of, or aren't yet scared of, and/or maybe should be? I'm not quite sure where this came from, or where it's going...?

It came from my interpretation of what you said here:

This is a positive trend, of course. But I suspect that the level of over-population — more accurately, over-consumption — is too high for our falling birth rates to correct in any sensible timescale? My opinion (and it is just that — I have no special expertise) is that our current 8,000,000,000 should fall to something like 80,000,000 before our population reaches 'sustainable' levels. That will take a looonnnggg time, I think.

You appear to be wishing for a significant and rapid decline in population to bring the population to what you believe might be a sustainable level?

All I'm saying is the trend of rapidly declining fertility rates is already leading to rapidly aging populations and, eventually, rapidly declining populations. This will post serious and challenging problems for humanity. I would not wish for any kind of population decline unless it happened very gradually.

[Pattern-chaser]

What "it depends" on is what we have already said clearly: total consumption. All else is secondary. Not 'wrong' or 'mistaken', or anything like that. Just secondary.

If, by "total consumption", you mean the consumption of the worlds resources (i.e. using them up), then yes, I agree.

But not if you mean the total resources that humanity consumes, which with the right knowledge and application of technology, might potentially grow unbounded.

I mean that too. Consumption is consumption, and it alone is the cause of our problems. As I said before, all else is secondary.

That is because the knowledge and technology that is available to us determine how effectively we can consume the earth's resources, as well as even replenishing it.

Odd, then, that no such replenishment is taking place, as far as I know, or can see...? We consume land, energy, and other creatures (and their habitats), and everything is starting to run out as a result...

You appear to be wishing for a significant and rapid decline in population to bring the population to what you believe might be a sustainable level?

I said no such thing; I meant no such thing. I mentioned no timescales. I simply stated that, IMO, there are far too many of us, and that a figure of 80 million global population seems closer (to me) to what our world can sustain or endure.

All I'm saying is the trend of rapidly declining fertility rates is already leading to rapidly aging populations and, eventually, rapidly declining populations. This will post serious and challenging problems for humanity. I would not wish for any kind of population decline unless it happened very gradually.

"Gradual" makes sense to me. Although there is an urgency, that you also refer to: what happens in the interim, as the population falls, and those who are left are predominantly old, and maybe in need of care and support. I.e. the latter are no longer contributing members of society; they've done that already... The drift toward euthanasia might be too tempting for the young to resist... I think these are your "serious and challenging problems for humanity"?

[Fried Egg]

But not if you mean the total resources that humanity consumes, which with the right knowledge and application of technology, might potentially grow unbounded.

I mean that too. Consumption is consumption, and it alone is the cause of our problems. As I said before, all else is secondary.

That is because the knowledge and technology that is available to us determine how effectively we can consume the earth's resources, as well as even replenishing it.

Odd, then, that no such replenishment is taking place, as far as I know, or can see...?
I'm not so much referring to what we have done (or are doing at the moment), rather speaking theoretically. However...

We consume land, energy, and other creatures (and their habitats), and everything is starting to run out as a result...

We don't consume land. We consume fossil fuels but not energy (and we are moving towards renewable energy sources). Yes, there are things we do consume but all I'm saying is that's not intrinsically so and it's not necessarily tied to our population level (or how much humanity consumes). Our technology and knowledge have advanced in ways that has lead to humanity to be able to sustain an exponentially larger population than was ever thought possible in the past (when such knowledge / technology didn't exist). I'm not saying that humanity is in a sustainable state right now, just that it could be with the right knowledge and technology.

Furthermore, we would be better directing our energies to expanding our knowledge and technology rather than trying to find ways to reduce our population and/or consumption.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the global population is still rising but, as I said, there is a big lag between changes to fertility rates and actual population levels. The global fertility rate has halved over the last 70 years. All expectations/predictions are for this trend to continue. From the Lancet:

Over the coming decades, global fertility is predicted to decline even further, reaching a TFR of around 1.8 in 2050, and 1.6 in 2100—well below the replacement level. By 2100, only six of 204 countries and territories (Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan) are expected to have fertility rates exceeding 2.1 births per female. In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are even predicted to fall below one child per female.

Yes, while the fertility rates are down in many places, overall population is rising rapidly. Two years ago it was announced that the world had reached 8 billion. Now it's 8.2. At this rate, it will be 9 billion by around 2033. The natural world was already rapidly in decline when the world had 6 billion, which was already outrageously overpopulated.

People will argue against this because they have been conditioned by self-interested politicians, media and social scientists but there has been exponential growth from 1950 that has decimated natural spaces. If we are to mourn to loss of nature, the least we could do is be realistic about its situation.

[Count Lucanor]

I am not going to read back through this entire thread, so I don't know if anybody has said this already, but as I understand it, over-population is no longer much of a concern. In most countries around the world, the demographic trends are showing sharply declining birth rates.

You’re right, I did. This thread has not aged well for the advocates of the overpopulation myth, some of which wanted to roast me alive. The myth has been moving slowly, but steadily, towards the trash bin, where it belongs.

[Fried Egg]

Yes, the global population is still rising but, as I said, there is a big lag between changes to fertility rates and actual population levels. The global fertility rate has halved over the last 70 years. All expectations/predictions are for this trend to continue. From the Lancet:

Over the coming decades, global fertility is predicted to decline even further, reaching a TFR of around 1.8 in 2050, and 1.6 in 2100—well below the replacement level. By 2100, only six of 204 countries and territories (Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan) are expected to have fertility rates exceeding 2.1 births per female. In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are even predicted to fall below one child per female.

Yes, while the fertility rates are down in many places, overall population is rising rapidly. Two years ago it was announced that the world had reached 8 billion. Now it's 8.2. At this rate, it will be 9 billion by around 2033. The natural world was already rapidly in decline when the world had 6 billion, which was already outrageously overpopulated.

I'm certainly not denying that the global population is likely to continue rising for the next few decades but it is predicted to peak before the end of the century before starting to fall. So yes, certainly this continued population increase is not without problems.

But what these aggregate figures do not show is that the average age has been rising rapidly and is expected to continue increasing in the future. This is not indicative of a commensurate increase in life expectancy, but rather a rapidly declining fertility rate.

You are right to point out this is not happening evenly across the globe. This will only increase global instability.

Look at Europe with it's socio-economic model and the way it's predicated on having a large working population that expands at least as fast as the aging population in order to fund the generous social welfare programmes their populations have come to expect. The only way these countries can continue to operate on the same basis will be to continue to bring in ever larger amounts of immigrants (from those areas of the world that still have high fertility rates). And yet we see many countries in Europe struggling to come to terms with this. They won't tolerate any reduction in their benefits (just see the riots that happened recently in Belgium in response to the reforms of the pension system their government is trying to push through). But we also see a backlash and rising social tensions arising from such high levels of immigration. As the fertility rates continue to decline, these problems are going to get more acute.

I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't soon lead to massive economic collapse (that makes the Great Depression look like a golden age) and war breaking out across the globe. It's not going to be pretty.