How To Make Earth's Population Sustainable?
 

Now I chose the thread title carefully because I don't want this to come off like a radical population-control topic. Just hear me out...

We are approaching 7 billion people on this planet. We are over it's current carrying capacity, and if we do not change our way of life, we are headed for trouble. This is obviously quite a touching issue, because population control in a lot of people's minds means strict one-child laws, forced sterilization, and forced abortion. Obviously going down that road would lead to just as many problems as we currently face. So my two questions are...

- How do we curb population growth? Obviously Fortress or Starship Troopers style population control would be pretty bad, so how do we get people to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have?

- If we can't get the population to decrease, how can we increase the planet's carrying capacity? How do we support billions of people, while still leaving room for Mother Nature's other creatures?

In my opinion, it's all a question of energy. With sufficient (clean) energy we can grow all the food and desalinate all the water we need. We would also have the energy to build whatever structures we needed.

Socialism, and a concerted effort from humanity in order to advance technology. This way we could inhabit other planets and spread the population out over the milky way galaxy. Maybe 2 billion per planet?

Socialism is a nice even way to kill everyone off. Overpopulation is one of the most dangerous lies to date. You can fit the entire earth's population in the county of Jacksonville, Florida and they'd still be able to move around. Sure, the big cities are crowded, but if you don't like the city, move! The earth is a vast place. Some'd say, "Only 3% is habitable." Nice point, but the average human brain uses 3% of its capacity; are we all imbeciles?

Sorry if I'm being zealous about this, but we've got some crazy people out there. I know you, Tsyal, don't want simple population control like what the Chinese have, I understand your point. But the people currently in power don't care. I've written extensively on this before.

7 miles north of Elberton, Georgia on Highway 77, 100 yards off the road on the right are the Georgia Guidstones, which were erected on March 22, 1980, by the Masonic Lodge. The stones are full of Masonic symbols. On these stones are the "Ten Commandments of the New Age." On one part of it it reads, "AUTHOR: R. C. CHRISTIAN (A PSEUDONYM)" Under this is written, "SPONSORS: A SMALL GROUP OF AMERICANS WHO SEEK THE AGE OF REASON." Here's where it gets a little creepy. The first "commandment" states, "MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE."

The problem with overpopulation is not the people, it's their mouths. Think on how many acres of harvesting zones you need to feed a city.

We can keep living the way we do because there are poor countries that don't take the same resources as us, because if everybody had the same life standards as we have, we would be having now a nuclear war for the last clean water or food remaining on Earth.

And please, don't take it with socialism or any other ideology. Ideas don't kill. People who want to take all the power yes.

I'm still waiting for the next plague... I have mixed feelings about that

We're going to be reaching that point, though, as third world countries continue to develop.

Is there a way to bioengineer crops to have higher calorie counts, so people need to consume less of them to get the same nutritional benefit?

Grif - I hope it doesn't get to that, but I fear if we do not take action now, it will. Nature is a self regulating system, and if we step too far out of line, we're going to get hell for it.

I don't have the energy to debate this issue for about the 10th time in as many weeks.

Over and out.

Eat less meat. That would make the food last for about 10 times more people and at the same time reduce the pollution and the use of fossil fuels and water:

Environmental effects of meat production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources // Energy

Meat vs. Grain & Vegetable Production - Energy Consumer - extension.usu.edu

The Greener Grass: Energy and Meat

That's just simply not true. Average human brain uses 100% of it's capacity and this is not the thing wrong in your post.

As for the original question, I think it's going to happen automatically. While overpopulating the Earth, we are at the same time polluting the air. Global Warming will eventually come to the point that certain parts of the planet will turn into desert, and people living in those areas will die..

..Um, no. I know what you're thinking, and that's not what I meant. ;)

The brain usage throughout our lives is 100%. Absolutely. That's concerning mechanical use. By capacity I meant the full potential of our brain storage capacity, as in the volume used to store information is maximum 3%, and that's going waay far off a limb. I was wrong, I admit: the full storage is far less than 3%. Some scientists say it's only 0.01-0.1% you use to store information in one given lifetime. In other words, if we were to live 1000 years, we would probably end up using about... say, 13-14% of our information storage. That's my guess. No one truly knows the full storage capacity. Oldest recorded death was 122 years, and calculated out he used (assuming he took in information at a constant rate) about 64 petabytes of information, and he still had a LOT more to go, probably.
Mmm... I'll just let this one slide like I did the "am I losing it?" thread. That's for another long, long, LONG.... discussion. ;)

Yeah right a system that has failed time and time again and that has caused more environmental damage wherever it has sprung than any capitalist country, get real!


Anyway currently the overpopulation problem is a problem that lies on the developing world or third world and the industrialized developed world where birth rates have dropped dramatically in siome countries beyond what anyone would consider acceptable levels in fact.

I agree with those that say we must consider the use of resources in our analysis of over-population. Holding everything else equal, the size of a population appears to be a problem when the amount of resources available are no longer sufficient to support the population.

In a way, Na'vi are communists. The idea itself is very awesome, It just doesn't work thanks to human nature...

Technically, they are neither. There's no capitalism, certainly, but equally, there is definitely free will, individualism and personal ownership of things.

Sounds like communism to me :P

Communism, IMO, can only work if people are willing to do everything with nothing to expect in return. But we all believe our paychecks are ours, don't we? That alone, by definition, is capitalism.

The only reason the Na'vi exist in such harmony under this similar system (not the same, just similar) is because they're all bound by a single, common language, deity, and way of life. There's no room for radical differences. There never was. If they possessed this they'd be just like us. The tower of Babel was built by a united earth, all under a single, common language, belief system, and society. The only difference between them and the Na'vi was their desire for power. This is absent on Pandora because it's literally impossible to be an atheist of Eywa, simply because it can be proven to exist by physical means.

...in what way? All of those things are the exact opposite of communism.

The main reason the Na'vi population is sustainable is because they aren't overpopulated. Perhaps a few hundred thousand of them on Pandora in total.

Those are the things communism involves in the hand of humans. I may have misunderstood the idea of communism, but I always thought free will, individualism and personal ownership were part of it (You can have your own clothes just like Na'vi have their bows, hammocks and such.).

I agree with Woodsprite, but just to remind you, Na'vi are still more communists than capitalists. Capitalism is all about race and fight, and can simply never stay in the limits of nature.

Communism is collective ownership by the state. There is no such thing as a company. Everything is state run. Everyone has equal rights. Everyone is given according to "need" only. And paid according to "work".

You see, you can't classify the Na'vi into political categories such as communism, capitalism and socialism. These should only be applied to nations of substantial population. A tribe of a few hundred natives is what it is. Actually you could probably just say that it is a monarchy.

Is overpopulation really a problem.

The population of the planet (both humans and animals) is kept in check by food supply. If the population outgrows the food supply then the excess population will die off.

I don't think there is such a thing as an unsustainable population (one that would result in the extinction of the entire human race)

The only problem is that the more people that exist the worse off quality of life for each person due to the supply and demand limitations.

If the population does get too high, reducing the quality of life for individuals, then the only controllable solution is to enforce a one child law.

Any attempt to reduce the population with violence will cause resistance, starting a war and if the choice on who lives and dies is not randomised, who would you trust to make that decision (assuming you could not nominate yourself).

I believe that a WCL will become popular when the individuals notice that there QoL is slowly improving.

That is the exact definition of overpopulation, and over thousand people are already dying _every hour_ for starvation.

But only in countries where the government is so restrictive that it uses its funds for things such as its military forces (Russia, China, countries in Africa, etc.) or beautification of architecture (Saddam's former Iraq, Russia again, etc.). You don't see these kinds of problems rampant in the U.S., the U.K., much of the European Union, Australia, or any "free" country-government (free to a certain extent, that is).

If these factors were played on, and government reduced to an entity that serves the people, we would not have so many starving nations. It isn't over-population, it's government control. We shouldn't even be worrying about this issue. The issue at hand is economic collapse: the trend that's been spreading around the globe lately (except China, of course ;)).

Overpopulation is a problem that is now centered on developing nations or as is commonly known the third world and the only humane way to deal with it is through education.

The idea to globally enforce a one child policy is totally wrong because it does not address the above stated fact and would lead to the disappearance of entire groups of people and cultures from Earth (Especially in the developed world) with the excuse that is for saving the planet. Such policies should only be adopted in the countries afflicted by overpopulation and it should not be done in a repressive manner either.

A standard human, lets say takes up 1 square meter of space standing up. 7 billion square meters would become 70thousand square kilometers of space.

O.o

...

You can't deal with it through education, most of developing countries are extremely unstable, a military crackdown is required first hot rod.


Such are the consequences.

Its called liebig's law of the minimum. The lowest resource will control any given population. Further, if a population moves above its carrying capacity, set by the environmental resources, then they will have an absence of the resources that; that given population needs. Therefore a naturally induced cull will take place. The population will shrink down to a sustainable size, humanity has this coming on a grand scale very soon, as soon as finite resources run out worldwide.

I agree with Spock, also in that I do not have the energy to make long posts on this.
Just a few remarks:
* Before you talk about communism or socialism, you should find out what that really means. The basics of the theory. Not the so-called socialist nations that never really have been true communist or socialist states at all! Also, socialism does not have to mean that everything is owned by the state, but that everything, all resources and production is there to serve all people. The ways to achieve this are manyfold.
* The liebig limit. It should suffice to say two things - one is, we do not want to hit that limit. Yes, population will control itself to its limits, but no it wont be pretty. What makes it worse is, that we are facing actually a decline of that limit rather than hitting it from below, we will find ourselves suddenly above it, worsening the effects. We have two choices - voluntary reduction (my preferred method is also socialism and education, but I would not oppose a two-child policy to keep at least ZPG); Or involuntary reduction by random means. Now whcih of these could be more "humane" - hmmmm
* increasing the planets capacity. It is possible in some ways. Especially with enough energy. Desalinated water, Skyscraper farming and using modern farming technologies in some additional areas can increase output. The problem is, that more production never solved the matter of overpopulation. Each time humans devised better food production, population increased (Liebigs law) until all that benefit went to hell. And many of the modern aspects of increasing output are either harming the planet and ourselves or are not sustaineable in the long run (making the problem of living above the Liebig limit even worse)
* Eating less meat - same as before. temporary solution only. Eventually we would, like in "Avatar", all eat plant derived protein slurry and be able to sustain twice as much population but still be on the brink.

For those in this thread who think, that growth is not a problem and can be handled, maybe even by colonizing space, please invest half an hour or so into education and listen to a lecture from a mathematics professor at the University of Boulder who can explain the dynamics of growth. It is not a boring math lecture, I promise, it is very well done and obviously focuses mainly on the topic of this thread and the predicament on what solutions we could choose: YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) (part 1 of 8)
http://www.aurora-glacialis.de/webde...ool/growth.jpg

Other than that all I can say is ;):
http://www.aurora-glacialis.de/webde...ople_error.jpg

and:
http://cutuphistory.org/media/cover_s.jpg
(translation: No, No, this is not communism; referring to the three self imposed communist leaders despite the fact that the mere concept of communism does exclude such a permanent position)

Oh and if you can understand German: this is a great one-page comic on the neverending discussion on communism.

1. No one here is saying that population growth is not a problem, but there a lot of misconceptions about this too. For example when Scientists said that we are above the carrying capacity what they really meant to say is that if every human being in the planet where to live as the people in the U.S and the developed world does you would need not one or 2 but 3 Earth like planets, hence the carrying capacity argument. Hope that clears the whole thing up.

2. I've always argued that education is the best way to solve the overpopulation problem that now afflicts the third world particularly Africa.

3. No matter how you want to paint it, Socialism and Communism are by far and wide failed social experiments. Maybe instead of trying to rehash them they should try to take what has worked from such models such as Cooperatives for example. and dump all from that system which has not worked and never will.

I'm going to finish by saying that responsible resource management and population management by education and voluntary means should not only be implemented in Earth but wherever we go next in the Cosmos. After all the same principles would apply on any off-world Solar system colonies or interstellar colonies.

That really won't be a problem, the food supply I mean. We can build giant skyscraper communities that put tons of people & farms inside columns that take up tons of vertical space but not much horizontal space. Absolutely the technology is already there today that we could have a much higher population and not starve.

So I don't see food as something that keeps us in check. We're more likely to hurt ourselves with overpopulation in ways we don't realize. We'll pave over the magic pond that sustains all life and overnight everything will die. OK, that's far fetched, but we will screw something up that we never would have thought of. Something that never would have occurred at lower population levels. I don't see it as an "if" in my mind, but rather a "when". Of course I put the "when" to be beyond my lifetime. So you know what? It's someone else's problem, let them figure it out. :)

Actually not entirely. Your statement is true, but that is not what is the only meaning of beeing over carrying capacity. For once, if humans are to grow like they do now and just maintain the current lifestyle, we'd need 2 planets within a century. But what I really missed is the fact, that the current resource and food production is largely based on cheap energy. Currently that cheap energy is fossil fuels. With energy, we produce fertilizers, agrochemicals and water for food production. If that energy fails or gets more expensive, world food production goes down. Also we are overusing the lands, soil degradation and erosion happens all over the world, also in the US. If crops would be grown in a manner that is in the long term sustainable, output could also diminish. So basically, we are living on a food production that is not sustainable in the long run but would rather diminish. Check out this (sadly rather simply written but still illustrating what I mean rather well) article. A way out is following later in the post when I replyto vvx.

But cooperatives are socialism. And basically true democracy (the rule of the people) is also socialism. Workers unions, public healthcare, free education - these are all elements of socialism. Interestingly, the US implemented such systems in the countires they defeated in WWII, but never adopted them themselves. And I tell you these are successful systems. For my thinking, they could have gone a little further, to further diminish inequality. Japan is not bad - it is one of the countires with the lowest difference in wages between upper management and lower working class. They have different (mostly cultural) issues however.

Very true - we have to get wise first and then go off world, not go off world because we did not manage to live here.

This can indeed be a solution for the production of food. I have given it a lot of thought since I read that article lately. The main issue I see is, that it even more depends on cheap energy (it is often not mentioned, but in skyscaper farms, >90% of the light has to be artificial!). If we get clean, cheap energy, we can manage this, but fusion is still far from practicable and nuclear energy is far from safe.

Also do we really want to grow:
Definitely. I oppose further population growth for several reasons. One - i causes stress in the people who have to live close together. And Two - it is not needed at all. We can achieve anything we want with half the people living on the planet now. Or even a quarter. And obviously three we are damaging earths systems by beeing so many without reason (see two).

I have seen several interesting indications lately on what we do not understand about life on earth yet. Funghi and even bacteria form complex networks of fibres to exchange nutrients and potentially information. A forest or an ocean/lake floor can be literally a system of interconnected lifeforms which profit from each other! This is not some Pandora-myth, it is down to earth science (just read a Nature-paper on it) and no, it obviously does not imply a thinking Eywa organism, it is just a network. The point is, if you disrupt it by any means - agrochemicals, deforestation, introduction of invasive species, dredge fishing ocean floors, seperating plants from the soil for food production in hydroponics or monocultures - there is not telling on what will happen in the long run and how long it takes to re-establish these networks.

People still think of plants, animals, microorganisms and funghi as seperate individuals you can put in a box and just have to add the right mix of nutrients to sustain them, but that is not true. Maybe they will grow, but maybe they won't - or they will grow but lack properties we are not aware of. Like greenhouse tomatoes that just do not taste like the ones grown in soil. It is all an interconnected network of ecologies.

@AuroraGlacialis: Cooperativism is an idea that comes from Socialism but the reason it has been a success it is because it has been set with a capitalist end goal of that group of people making some money. Cooperatives for collectives never worked as well at all. And no Actual democracy is nothing but mob rule I rather be ruled by the law than by a mob and it's whim of the moment.


Other than that and given that we seem to agree on education and voluntary action as opposed to imposing a vision to solve the overpopulation problem in the world particularly in Africa, I'd say hat we are almost on the level here.:cool:

Yes, that is the reason it is a success in an environment that is goverened by a money based economy. It would not work any other way in that context. The main goal of the people in a cooperative however is not to make as much money as they can and buy a yacht, but to make enough money to live a good life. The goal is not to buy more and more stocks until someone owns the company and can dictate what will happen. And that is the socialist concept behind it - it does not matter so much if money is still involved (I personally believe it is not a general necissity in the long run, but that is futuristic talk), but the underlying principles are social and that is what counts.

Well - democracy has its problems yes. But saying that it is bad because 51 percent can dictate 49% and then impose a system that lets 10% or 1% dictate the remaining population is not much better, is it? Obviously law, constututional rights and all that are the foundation of all "good" systems of government, but I think the more people have to agree on a decision the more just the system is. Of course if every decision would require a 2/3 or 3/4 or even a 90% vote, we'd never get anywhere...
A big problem with democracy obviouls is, that each democratic decision would have to be taken by a well educated person. Ideally, all people in a state would be well educated and interested in the decision enough to inform themselves about it. Sadly many people could not care less, are not well educated and mostly are influenced by propagandist media. That way, a democracy cannot really work well.

Phew - thanks. At least not another heavy debate like I am having in AF now. ;)

@AuroraGlacialis: Actually I know people that work at Cooperatives that have pleasure boats etc, not everyone in the cooperative does but they do because they spend and invest more wisely than others did. So what? Honestly what is wrong with people enjoying the fruits of their freaking labor? If they earned it so be it!

If I made a ton of money every year and had the chance to buy a yacht, I'd buy a yacht. Am I evil?

Depends on how you acquired it, and what you did with your new-found wealth in total.

He obviously meant a rightfully acquired fortune. Say he made a new invention and that invention becomes so popular he becomes rich as a result and he buys a Yacht does that make him evil? Hell no and let me guess in your collectivist mind you think that if he does not give nearly all of his rightfully acquired fortune to those that have not made as much or not at all which is where it goes for the most part to lazy bums then that makes him evil, which a load of crap.

Well - I think the key note is probably how you define "rightfully aquired". That can stretch very far. I personally oppose people who happen to have money (maybe by inheritance or even by their own work) to make more money just because of this. Basically without further work. They are lazy bums earning money. If you make money by trading goods that have been produced at incredibly low wages in some developing country - is that still rightful? I would rather think not so much. What about having an invention and selling it to a company that does not use it? not good. But others may see it differently, so the definition of rightful is wide.
I personally favour any model in which work is rewarded, but in a moderate way. In a way that somehow relates to the work done. I see no reason why a banker or a manager should earn enough to buy a yacht while a pilot or nurse barely makes enough to pay the bills. Both do work and both do work hard. Also I think people should be social, that means if someone cannot work or does work that is not in context of a job, they should be supported anyways. No person is here without a reason. Even the guy who sits at home all day long and sifts through the internet to write a blog, edit Wikipedia articles, sets up a forum for some community etc. Or the woman who helps their elderly neighbors voluntarily or sets up some community event. We are approaching a time in which not all work that people do can be in the context of a contract. This kind of work is only possible if people get support (money) anyways. One example is, that it used to be the case that one person in a family earned enough to provide for all, who in turn could do such things. Many people contributing to Wikipedia are without work or students. So I think the focus should not always be to reward only people who do work in context of a job with a contract, but to support everyone with the basic needs and add to that a reward for work - and that reward should reflect the amount of work, not some fantasy status of certain jobs.

I'd buy the yacht too. In fact, I'm pretty well off compared to the average and do spend my gains, so I have bought the yacht (at a much lower level.) That is to say I spend money on things I could do without.

I also recognize the economic system is not an equitable or fair system at all. Consider Bill Gates. I love the guy, he's the perfect example. He was for a while the richest man in the world. I don't remember who's the richest anymore, but Bill is still insanely rich.

What if he was born 5 years later? You see, what was happening in the early 80's really wasn't about any individual person but about the technology. Once we obtain so much technology the moment presents itself and we jump forward. It doesn't matter who owns the technology or who is selling the technology. That is to say whoever owns and sells that technology is probably going to greatly profit, but it's not that they were exceptionally smart or deserving of it. They just happened to have the right stuff at the right time.

So what if Bill Gates was born 5 years later? Someone else would have created Microsoft. The monopoly-like entity would still have existed, but under the power of someone else, someone else who would have been the rich guy. Bill Gates no doubt would still be successful, but the difference between a good 6 figure salary and richest man in the world is great.

And that's the system. Hard work and applying your skills are important to succeed. You can however work very hard and apply your skills and be a genius who never amounts to anything because your particular skills were wrong for the era. Or you didn't meet the guy who wants to buy them, never able to make that connection. Or the job you should have had went to the rich golf club friend's son. There's so much out of your hands that what you actually can control is minuscule. The truth is, it's not a matter of not working hard enough or not trying hard enough when we're talking about "How to become one of the richest men in the world." It's about the luck. Be born to the right family, that's a huge benefit. Start wealthy, that helps. And be lucky.

But do I view the individuals who win the "unofficial" lotto as weak for embracing the advantages life has given them? No, not at all. I would do the same. I recognize the system isn't fair. I'd like a fair system. But given the system we have, I'll take advantage of it when I can just like anyone else.

@vvx: Yes - I agree. The current economy is basically a big Las Vegas. There is much more luck and sleaze involved than actually work or creativity in gaining money and power. The perfidious thing about the system is, that if you do not follow it, you will get into really bad situations and have no power. So obviously no one would deny taking advantage if one can as long as it does not conflict with personal morale (like I did prefer taking a job in ecology rather than economy and lost money by that). So the system would have to change. Either from bottom up by forming cooperatives that are internally fair but externally can compete in the current system or by a collapse and rebuilt, which bears the risk of not having control of what comes after. Th first option is slow - very slow. The second is something even high ranking economists consider possible (Citigroup memo!), so I guess they already have a plan how to save their wealth over such a crisis and deny a more fair system to emerge, but from that Memo I think, they are quite afraid that the chances are, change could happen then.

Well I guess the solution is to make it less about luck and sleaze ( does that mean less strip bars? :P ) and more about creativity and talent etc.