How To Make Earth's Population Sustainable?

[Sonoran Na'vi]

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.

[Human No More]

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

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Fosus

Sounds like communism to me

...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.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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

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.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Fosus

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.

[Rainbowhawk1993]

I think it's going to be reaily hard to stop the number of births because many People in thrid world countries beilive that women are just baby makers. (It's Just sad)

[GLaDOS]

That is unfortunately the case, and we wont be able to change them fast enough.

[HiddenObserver]

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.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by HiddenObserver

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.

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

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Fosus

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 ).

[PunkMaister]

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.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

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

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

Such are the consequences.

Originally Posted by Fosus

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

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.

[vvx]

Originally Posted by HiddenObserver

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.

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.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by vvx

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.

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:

we will screw something up that we never would have thought of. Something that never would have occurred at lower population levels.

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.