Two Billion?

[Neytiri.]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Is the overall consensus here that overpopulation isn't a problem, but that if the population continues to grow it will negatively effect economic growth? "Economic growth" including things like food supply, GDP, etc.

Is this the concensus?

Yeah overpopulation can never be good, we will eventually run out of food and be forced to make more thus forcing us to search for more land, eventually leading to the loss of more land. We're screwed.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Neytiri.

Yeah overpopulation can never be good, we will eventually run out of food and be forced to make more thus forcing us to search for more land, eventually leading to the loss of more land. We're screwed.

Overpopulation and lack of food is indeed not good but thats not much of a problem right now or in the foreseeable future. Like I said several times earlier, we only use 10% of all arable land. Geneticly modified crops with higher yields and more insect resistance are also appearing in larger numbers as we speak. And more efficient farming methods with GPS systems, robots, and sensors are already beginning to appear. In fact we do have prototype robots that can already manage a small garden from seed to harvest without human interaction. All that remains is for the cost to come down over the course of a decade or two.

[Neytiri.]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Overpopulation and lack of food is indeed not good but thats not much of a problem. Like I said several times earlier, we only use 10% of all arable land.

yeah thats true, we can fit everyone in the world in one state so I think we'll be fine for a long while, Unless every person on the planet has like 10 baby's, then were doomed. But i doubt that will happen

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Overpopulation and lack of food is indeed not good but thats not much of a problem right now or in the foreseeable future. Like I said several times earlier, we only use 10% of all arable land. Geneticly modified crops with higher yields and more insect resistance are also appearing in larger numbers as we speak. And more efficient farming methods with GPS systems, robots, and sensors are already beginning to appear. In fact we do have prototype robots that can already manage a small garden from seed to harvest without human interaction. All that remains is for the cost to come down over the course of a decade or two.

How much of that other 90% of arable land is also highly biodiverse? And what do we do then with the inhabitants that are already living there? Exactly how much of the Earths surface, percentage wise, are we supposedly going to have to develop to support 9.2 billion people? And how much will be left for non-human life?

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Overpopulation and lack of food is indeed not good but thats not much of a problem right now or in the foreseeable future. Like I said several times earlier, we only use 10% of all arable land. .

Remember though that not all land is suitable for agriculture. Also we ought not to forget the dangers of turning all land into gigantic monocultures only inhabited by our crops and livestock. In doing so we put ourselves into peril destroying the biodiversity of our world, thus making us susceptible for future biological and environmental catastrophes.

[Banefull]

I would say that a bigger problem is in how we consume rather than how much. Consider your typical bottle of water from a vending machine. It is perhaps one of the most wasteful processes ever of getting a consumer item to your shelf. The water is packed in nonbiodegradable plastic bottle that sits in a landfill for an eternity. It also comes from hundreds or even thousands of miles transported in large trucks whose gas mileage leaves a lot to be desired. You could just get water from a tap with almost no environmental impact at all. This process repeats itself billions of times each year because people are willing to pay $1 for it (billions of plastic bottles each year, hundreds of thousands of truck trips). If aliens ever visited Earth they would be baffled at such blatant inefficiency.



When consumption is extrapolated to include a larger population, the figures assume that we procure and supply with the same efficiency. If we distributed things more efficiently (buying locally, things in season, more environmentally friendly items etc) then we would not have an overconsumption problem.

[Woodsprite]

Plastic bottles are recycled to be reused over and over again. So... I don't see how they're inefficient.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Plastic bottles are recycled to be reused over and over again. So... I don't see how they're inefficient.

Think about all the fuel wasted to cart them back and forth.

Anyway, I think there is still debate on the final number that is sustainable. 9.2 billion might be the actual population curve, but whether that is truly sustainable long term is still up in the air. There is going to be a point where no matter how efficient, and low impact we are, where this tiny planet of ours will reach it's carrying capacity, and no amount of clean energy or green technology will change that. There is a minimum amount of energy and resources required for a human being to simply be able to live, and some more to live healthfully and happily, and there's only so much energy and resources around to fulfill these needs. Whether that number is 2 billion, or 4 billion, or 7 billion, or 9.2 billion is still being debated.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Plastic bottles are recycled to be reused over and over again. So... I don't see how they're inefficient.

Not every plastic bottle gets recycled. Some countries do indeed recycle but a lot still get thrown away.





And then there are other places



where bottles are hardly recycled at all.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Anyway, I think there is still debate on the final number that is sustainable. 9.2 billion might be the actual population curve, but whether that is truly sustainable long term is still up in the air. There is going to be a point where no matter how efficient, and low impact we are, where this tiny planet of ours will reach it's carrying capacity, and no amount of clean energy or green technology will change that. There is a minimum amount of energy and resources required for a human being to simply be able to live, and some more to live healthfully and happily, and there's only so much energy and resources around to fulfill these needs. Whether that number is 2 billion, or 4 billion, or 7 billion, or 9.2 billion is still being debated.

If we want to go with the bare minimum energy for everyone then the planet can support dozens of billions or even over 80 billion sustainably with the technology today. A human going bare bones takes only a fraction of a fraction of the energy usage of the average human today. The only bottleneck would be available farmland (remember we only utilize 10% of all available farmland today). Its not the basics of what we consume, its the excesses.

[Tsyal Makto]

Though why do we feel need to keep expanding our population (even if we can't do anything about it, anyway)? Sure, we could continue to exploit more and more land, expand the human ecosystem even more, though why not leave it for every other plant and animal species on the planet? That's what I worry about in this whole idea of expanding our population. Sure, we could accomodate 9+ billion people, but to make the necessary developments - the expansion of farmland, industry, and urban areas - how much non-human life will end up pushed into oblivion? I don't want to live in a world where the only other life on the planet is humans, no matter how many there are. To kill off most of the other life on the planet is not worth it.

Why do we feel the need to exploit every square inch of this planet, simply in the name of amassing our numbers?

Someone abate my fears, please.

[caveman]

Humanity is at a very interesting point right now. There is a lot of bad things going on, but each setback brings room for opportunity. There is a calling for someone to do something that will seemingly solve everything. That person will become a iconic figure for the future.

Not to undermine the severity of the issue, but a different perspective:

Not too long ago, people living in the major cities feared the streets would eventually become knee deep in horse poo from all the carriages. They produced it faster than humans could clean it....And then someone came a long, and made the car...

Solutions bring new problems of course, but they solve old ones. It's time for someone to not only come up with a solution, but a lasting one. And that will come from changing the paradigms of their society.

There are answers out there. But the passion to find them cannot be blocked by irrationality and frantic actions.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Someone abate my fears, please.

Action my friend. Take action.

But don't kill anybody! Think smart, not hard.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Why do we feel the need to exploit every square inch of this planet, simply in the name of amassing our numbers?

Sorry for the triple post...

I've thought about this, and I think Parks is the most effective way to go. National Parks, State Parks, Local Parks, Parks.

I think this is a good route because of the mentality. The general public will agree on making parks. Everyone loves parks, nobody is going to say no. Even the biggest consumer would like to see a park set up, where a Wal-Mart could be. It's the idea that you're getting something, when really, you're just leaving something alone.

[Tsyal Makto]

If that's the case, then we need to declare a LOT more land as parks.

[Woodsprite]

I actually agree with caveman's assertion.

However, if the question is whether or not population growth would hinder economic growth, I don't agree because of simple economic studies and historical facts. I know I said I wouldn't get involved in anymore debates regarding religion, politics, or ethics, but I do wish to show some facts regarding the economic issue. This will help the discussion veer toward a more realistic outlook, I believe.

I've been researching this a bit. The world's population is increasing at the rate of about 2.3 people per second. According to the U.N., that's correct: the projected population would be about 9.1 billion by 2050 (as was stated many times already). However, the assertion that such growth is "bad" for supplying the world's GDP, food supply, etc. came from Thomas Malthus in an essay he wrote back in 1789. Ever since, we have people called Malthusians, like most of you guys. Over and over, the media and certain scientists have said pretty much the same thing: rapid population growth threatens economic development, the quality of life, etc. etc.

Problem is, Malthus was proven wrong. He predicted how population would outstrip food supplies, but this prediction has never been supported by the facts, according to economist Nicholas Eberstadt (from the Harvard Center for Population Studies). As the world's population has grown, so has its food supply (measured by calories per person). Even the price of food (adjusted for inflation) has generally fallen for more than a century. This automatically means that the world's food supply has actually been expanding faster than the rise in demand caused by increased population.

According to Economics Today (15th Edition) by Roger LeRoy Miller (emphasis added):

...economists have found that as nations become richer, average family size declines. Otherwise stated, the more economic development occurs, the slower the population growth rate becomes. This has certainly been true in Western Europe and in the former Soviet Union, where populations in some countries are actually declining. Predictions of birthrates in developing countries have often turned out to be overstated if those countries experience rapid economic growth. This was the case in Chile, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Taiwan.

Miller went on to state:

Modernization reduces infant morality, which in turn reduces the incentive for couples to have many children to make sure that a certain number survive to adulthood.

According to the Penn World Tables for IMF, the comparisons between population growth and growth in Per Capita Real GDP since 1970 indicate a constant growth in GDP caused by population growth. You have countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, where the avarage annual population growth rate percentages are doubled in percentage rates for the annual rates of growth of Per Capita Real GDP. Population growth is helping in many cases. Particularly for the U.S., the population growth rate is 1.0%, while the GDP growth rate is 0.9% higher. There's an increase.

So what do I say from looking at all these facts? I say, sure. Let the population rise. Although, I do agree with caveman in that we must find an environmentally efficient way to continue production of resources. However, no matter how the production of resources is carried out, there are no concrete facts that indicate population growth will hinder the world's food supply and/or GDP. The facts just don't add up to such a statement.


The fate of the environment is in how we supply resources, not obtaining supplied resources (there's quite a difference between the two).