6 billion?

Great Debates
81

And with even today’s technology, we have barely scratched the surface of our food production ability. If we needed to (say an evil sorcerer waved a wand and caused the Earth population to multiply by a factor of ten within ten years), we could produce enough food to feed everyone.

The oceans make up 70% of the surface area of the earth, and much more than that in terms of usable volume, and yet our use of them for food production involves skimming the very top layer sporadically for wild game (i.e. fish). There are lots of ways to develop the ocean as a food resource. A favorite of mine involves using the thermal differential between the surface and deep ocean as a power source, with a byproduct being a natural ‘bloom’ of animals due to the nutrient-rich cold water that is expelled.

We can increase production on land in a number of ways, including genetic engineering, hydroponics, soil management, new forms of machinery and automation, etc.

My uncle is a chicken farmer using a very modern, automated operation. He and an assistant run the whole place, which has several hundred thousand chickens. The whole farm takes up the space of a large condo development. High density agriculture like this is becoming more and more popular.

82

Akats]]]]It’s not too difficult, therefore, to come up with a decent estimate of the population of these areas on a decade-by-decade basis, and of the amount of calories that could have been gotten out of these areas.]]]]]]

But where is the proof that we reached a land limit?

Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.

83

dhanson]]]]We can increase production on land in a number of ways, including genetic engineering, hydroponics, soil management, new forms of machinery and automation, etc.]]

Both you and Akats have posted informative posts concerning feeding a growing world population but have totally ignored the central issue: at what point do we say the world has enough people to sustain a healthy planet and life forms?

We have a finite amount of land and a growing world popualtion endangers the land of the planet. Is 6 enough and is 7 too many?

Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.

84

John John asks:

“Enough”? The lower limit is evidently zero; the Earth got by quite nicely for at least three billion years without humans, and all the evidence, despite some of the shriller cries on both sides of the aisle, is that it will continue to do for at least several hundred million years more if we were to all drop dead tomorrow.
The upper limit is more questionable, but seems to be at least several tens of billions of humans, and may be one or two orders of magnitude higher.
It should be noted that the exact upper limit is dependent on our abandoning the Noble Savage™ attitude that we can burn anything, and toss garbage anywhere we please, expecting that we are so insignificant a portion of the landscape that natural processes will absorb whatever trash we throw.
Various factions, for whatever reasons, seem to find this attitude either attractive or inevitable, and seek to restore human impotence. History indicates, however, that even so quaint and nostalgic a technology as swidden agriculture is quire capable of ruining thousands of square miles of terrain. Short of reverting to a HFG existence, therefore, these efforts seem futile.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

85

AkatS]]]]]]The upper limit is more questionable, but seems to be at least several tens of billions of humans, and may be one or two orders of magnitude higher]]]]]]

You state, quite correctly, that such numbers,[ those numbers are really quite fantastic],are not viable with our current disregard for such basic eccological fundementals as recycling and proper waste disposal etc. But Akats, where would you put these additional teeming billions of waste producers, water users, home builders and energy users? Hmmm? Can you picture a landscape of dense dwellings instead of open, breathing wilderness? Do we cut more rain forests down to house the the extra billions you say are possible on this already overcrowded planet? Would you agree to build on any open ground to house these extra billions?

I think your view of what this planet will tolerate in terms of population is optimistic.

86

John John wrote, in a posting that I overlooked:

No proof at all; indeed, the FAO statistics proof exactly the opposite, as I said.

I wouldn’t put them anywhere; I’m a firm believer in the right of people to migrate when and where they choose, even if, by some perversity, they end up in LA.
Assuming that I get elected king of the world, however, and assuming that I don’t have the strength of mind to immediately abdicate, may I suggest the Sahara?
It has an area of about 3,500,000 square miles; thus, we can put about 3 billion people there before it reaches the population density of Belgium (and, as I am sure that the Teeming Thousands know, the reputation of Belgium as a sinkhole of poverty, violence, and despair is high exaggerated, except when British soccer fans are in town).
But wait, I hear someone saying, the Sahara is a hot sandy, desolate place entirely unsuitable for human beings (not unlike southern California in its native state, in fact). Well, in 1904, the Owens Valley aqueduct (which, as a resident of LA, I am sure that you are familiar with) const USD2.3x10[sup]7[/sup], about 0.1 year GDP for LA at the time. Given that LA has managed to survive until the present time, we may hypothesize that spending 0.1 year of GDP of a limited region will not cause economic collapse for at least a century. It is questionable as to what income is applicable to the reformation of the Sahara (whether or not US GDP is included makes a large difference, obviously), but USD1x10[sup]13[/sup] does not seem out of the question. Indeed, since subsistence agricultural bears part of the blame for destroying the Sahara’s ecology of 10,000 BP in the first place, it seems only right, in my eyes, that the more environmentally benign industrial technology of the present do its part in correcting the matter.
Now, of course, we may offer various objections to this solution: the theory that the countries occupying this ground are real nations, and that their bosses are their legitimate leaders; that many people in the US and elsewhere in the “developed” world get the warm fuzzies at knowing that there is a vast stretch of waste somewhere, and that the inhabitants of the Third World are unlikely to show up in Yosemite; the objections that, instead of sitting on the couch watching Friends and trusting to Nature and to Nature’s God(dess) that everything will turn out for the best, they will have to think about what they are doing; even the fantasy that three billion people will be only a drop in the bucket. This last nightmare, of course, is immediately refutable; the others are social and political problems. not, I freely concede, to be corrected by a wave of the hand.
As I previously said, we must give up the savage, childish attitude that we can make messes wherever we choose (and, say, destroy the savannahs of the Sahara or the forests of the American Southwest) in the hopes that someone or something will clean them up with no effort on our part. Unfortunately, the attitude of too many seems to be that someone else should be prevented from making those messes, that there are “just enough of me, and far too many of you”.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

87

John John: Your response is a good example of why there is no real answer to this question: It’s a religious debate. To some environmentalists, the optimum number of humans equals zero. To other people, there are no environmental issues, because they have complete faith in our ability to overcome adversity.

In terms of raw ability to feed people, I think it’s pretty clear that we could tolerate much higher populations. Other quality-of-life issues are harder to pin down, and very subjective.

One thing you should consider: The price of natural resources and food has been dropping steadily for the past 20 years, indicating that our supplies are increasing relative to demand, at least in the short term.

88

Go to http://cnn.com/NATURE/9911/01/water.enn/index.html for a story that backs up John John’s assertion that we’re dangerously close to running out of fresh water. It’s entitled “Populations outrunning water supplies.” Aquifers are being depleted all over the world at an alarming rate. If we don’t starve, maybe we’ll die of thirst instead?

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana

89

I don’t think we’ll die of thirst, since they haven’t died of thirst in a lot of incredibly dry areas. We may very well have to spend a lot of our GNP on desalination (reverse osmosis) plants, though. They work in Saudi Arabia, a country which has a guaranteed source of income and a moderate population. Whether or not they would be affordable in many other places … I don’t know.

Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.

  • Boris Badenov
90

I might also point out that Santa Barbara, CA, built a plant that desalinated water at a cost of about USD2,000/acre-foot. If all of California had gotten its water from desalination, it would have cost about USD7x10[sup]10[/sup] – about 1/10 of the GDP of California at that time. California would have survived quite nicely, although there would no doubt have been the usual political whining and wriggling as everyone tried to stick someone else with the bill.
Fairly clean, potable water (by historical standards, at least) is not a problem. Getting it to the people who need it, and preventing them from doing something stupid with it like growing alfalfa in the Imperial Valley, <>is* a problem, but it’s a political problem, not a technological or environmental one.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

91

AKats]]]]I wouldn’t put them anywhere; I’m a firm believer in the right of people to migrate when and where they choose, even if, by some perversity, they end up in LA.]]]]

It seems that swarms of the worlds Tempest Toss’d are finding their way to your great City daily. What do you envision the mid 21st century to be like in Ca? Rots a ruck.

I couldn’t help but notice the contradiction in your post. You suggest that the Sahara Desert, nice and far away, as a possible dumping ground for the extra few billion. Problem one- NO MORE DESERT, two, were is the next spot for all their offsprings? Do the math and you’ll see that if each person has just 2 children that amount is staggering in a few generations.

Let’s move closer to home. Would you house a few billion in the Grand Canyon? How about just one billion more in Ca? Take the Redwoods down to make room? Do you think Mulholand’s dream was to quench the thirst of billions? Hmmmm? Think you would be able to water your lawn, wash your BMW? I don’t think so. How expensive do you think water would be then?

Akats]]]]]]As I previously said, we must give up the savage, childish attitude that we can make messes wherever we choose (and, say, destroy the savannahs of the Sahara or the forests of the American Southwest) in the hopes that someone or something will clean them up with no effort on our part. Unfortunately, the attitude of too many seems to be that someone else should be prevented from making those messes, that there are “just enough of me, and far too many of you”.]]]

Well, no, that is not what is being said. What is being said is that there are enough me’s and you’s and a few billion more will create the messes you mention, which will be irreversible. I submit that your view is savagely childish and bordering on the irresponsible.

Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.

92

John John:

Leaving aside what I am fairly sure is the facetious nature of the post to which you are replying, please note that you are again asserting an idea for which you have not provided any backup.

If we populated the Sahara, it would certainly be as an industrial (or, perhaps, post-industrial) culture. As several of us have pointed out in numerous posts, to which you have provided no substantive rebuttal, industrial societies have delining birth rates. This is true in theory. This is true in fact.

Once people realize that they do not have to breed nine children in the hopes that four will live long enough to support them in their old age on the family farm, people stop having as many children. Go back through the thread; the information has been explained and documented.

The Sahara is not going to become a farming community any time soon, so the analogy was made to Southern California. If we have a few extra people, build the next L.A. or Las Vegas out where the construction will not interfere with our ability to raise crops. Spend the money from our generally rising GDP to desalinate and purify water to ship in. The very nature of the society that lives there will ensure that the population does not rise through breeding. (Just as the populations of SoCal and Las Vegas are increasing through immigration, not birth replacement.) Your question beginning “if each person has just 2 children” is irrelevant because in such a society the birthrate will probably be 1.2 per couple and will never be 4 per couple.

Now, I am not so blasè regarding population and pollution as one or two posters, here, have appeared. They are serious issues. They do need to be addressed. However, most folks have reacted to your alarmist predictions. It does your argument no good to run in circles:

John: We’re going to explode with people!
Response: The birthrate is falling.
J: Where will we put them all?!?!
R: If we get too many, we can store them in the Sahara.
J: They’ll breed themselves out of space.
R: The birthrate is still hasn’t stopped falling.

Tom~

93

This is why I said that this was becoming a religious debate. I had a sense that John John was baiting us with his neutral-sounding questions. Now the real agenda is coming out.

I agree that environmental issues are serious, especially in some areas. I do not agree that we are anywhere close to an environmental global catastrophe, nor will we be for hundreds or even thousands of years. ALL of the data available indicates that global population will either shrink, or at worst-case stabilize at around 11 billion. So forget about having to stack people like cordwood in every unoccupied location on Earth. It isn’t going to happen.

Our use of resources has just scratched the surface of the tiniest outer layer of the planet. Our food consumption has all but ignored 70% of the Earth’s most plentiful food supply (the oceans). No large-scale attempt has been made to develop the oceans as a food resource, other than hunting for wild game.

For a long time we thought we would soon be running out of oil and metals, but worldwide reserves of all these resources have been growing - we’ve been discovering new deposits faster than we can use it up. This can’t last forever, but no one knows where the end is. I have faith that as these resources dwindle we will have an economic incentive to find replacements, and that we will.

We haven’t begun to exploit the rest of our solar system.

There are many, many solutions to environmental problems and resource problems that we know about now but don’t use simply because we have no financial incentive to do so. At some point, we will.

94

Tom]]]]]]]]If we populated the Sahara, it would certainly be as an industrial (or, perhaps, post-industrial) culture. As several of us have pointed out in numerous posts, to which you have provided no substantive rebuttal, industrial societies have delining birth rates. This is true in theory. This is true in fact.]]]]]]]

What’s the difference of HOW we populate the Sahara, post-industrial, pre-industrial, faux-industrial? If we populate it it will no longer be a desert but a huge housing development. Also, what difference does it make WHERE the teeming BILLIONS come from, First World, Second World, Third World? The question is not what socio-economic level they come from but the fact that there is a population limit this planet can SAFELY tolerate and no one, not me, not you, seem to know what that number is.

I will tell you though, Tom, it seems sensible not to overpopulate the world since history shows us how catastrophic that can be. Just think of China with 4 or 6 billion more? Would you feel safe being their close neighbor?

Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.

95

dhanson]]]]This is why I said that this was becoming a religious debate. I had a sense that John John was baiting us with his neutral-sounding questions. Now the real agenda is coming out]

Wish you’d share this “agenda” with me? Bait? I would say that my suggestions are irreligious and not the slightest bit neutral. I’m an advocate for less population and stricter environmental laws. How is that neutral?

dhanson]]]Our use of resources has just scratched the surface of the tiniest outer layer of the planet. Our food consumption has all but ignored 70% of the Earth’s most plentiful food supply (the oceans). No large-scale attempt has been made to develop the oceans as a food resource, other than hunting for wild game. ]]]

We are too busy polluting and overfishing the seas to investigate new ways to turn the ocean floor into a shitheap, but that’ll come. Have you read anything on what we are doing to the oceans? Fossil fuels are nearing the end of supplies and we are still not using solar and wind properly, or to the extent that have any impact on our energy needs.

Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.

96

John John, dhanson is right: you’re preaching the faith of the Goddess Gaia.

In your OP, you wrote:

I believe that, I, dhanson, and several others have given you the information – yea, have pointed to the very websites – that contain the data that, at the least, cast serious doubt on your preaching. You have apparently shown complete refusal to even look at these data, preferring instead to pose a set of (to your meagre understanding, and that of your fellow worshippers) insoluble questions, ignoring each answer in turn and asking the question again.

You have not shown the slighest indication that you recognize that the economy, and thereby the ecology, of the world has changed in the last 150 years. Your information, such as it is, on population growth appears to be laughably out of date. Your prejudices towards energy sources are expectable, albeit completely wrong, as this report shows.

What you have done, with your misinformation and transparent advocacy of being assigned vast amounts of power, is to succeed in irritating me, and leading me to decide that you are deserving of public humiliation by exposing just how wrong your regurgitated ideas are.

What is the maximum human population that the world can sustain without environmental degradation? Zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. One person, lighting one fire, degrades the environment. It may not be the permanent, severe degradation that a spoiled, rich, white city boy notices, but it happens, none the less.

How many people can the world sustain permanently? I say again that the number is several tems of billions, and may be one or two orders of magnitude higher. Deal with that fact. Learn it. Take it to bed with you at night.

Your nightmares of the starving hordes overrunning the world unless you and Paul Ehlrich are granted the exclusive use of the keys of heaven and hell isn’t happening, and isn’t going to happen. Deal with that.

Now, to the otherposters on this thread: I have, as I noted, committed myself on the carrying capacity of the Earth. I offer How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare For Nature? as the starting point for my assertions.

Criticisms?

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

97

John John:

Johnny, after two years I should know better than to bother, but on the off chance that you will actually read something, for a change, instead of simply posting responses that ignore the material:

Because if we happened to find a bunch of overflow people that we needed to store somewhere, placing them in any non-agrarian, non-subsistence environement will (based on historical developments) guarantee that they will reduce their birthrate so that if you moved two billion in on 01/01/2025, by 12/31/2050 there would be fewer than two billion people living there. You admantly refuse to acknowledge this, but modern society does not breed at replacement rates.

The difference is crucial. The First World began failing to replace itself in the 1960’s, the Second World (former U.S.S.R., China), has not been replacing itself for some time. Those countries in the Third World who achieve the level of economic and technological prosperity of what used to be considered the First World immediately see their birthrates drop.

There are only a limited number of societies left in the world with high birthrates, and as the general level of the world economy rises, the birth rates of those societies fall, as well.

Yet several posters have provided the educated guesses of a lot of researchers that think they do know the upper limits. The people who actually watch the world population levels have already discovered that not only are we not approaching those limits, it appears that we will never reach those limits.

This information has already been provided several times on this thread. If you are not going to bother reading the information and replying, with facts, to the information, then you are not participating in a Great Debate, you are whining. (Have you supplied any facts during this discussion? It seems that you have done nothing but dismiss every other post in order to cry “Woe, woe!”)

As noted earlier, I think that the issues of pollution and clean water are serious ones. Addressing those issues, however, does not require committing suicide to make the world a better place for our grandchildren.

Tom~

98

Akats]]]What you have done, with your misinformation and transparent advocacy of being assigned vast amounts of power, is to succeed in irritating me, and leading me to decide that you are deserving of public humiliation by exposing just how wrong your regurgitated ideas are]

What power has been assigned to me, and by whom?

Your children will get the type of world you deserve. Get back to me when you pull your head out of the sand.

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

99

Tom[[[[[[Johnny, after two years I should know better than to bother, but on the off chance that you will actually read something, for a change, instead of simply posting responses that ignore the material]]]]

I’ve read those “what, me worry? the ship’s not sinking” optimistic, irresponsible, uninformed articles many years ago. You can take solace in the fact that many feel as you do, which will really be small comfort when things go bad.

The problem with your tired “information” is that it says that there is no problem, total myopia, and conjectures that “it wil all work out in the end.” Don’t you believe it. I do not accept that there is no problem with adding billions more to this world. For you to say that is contrary to what is already known about the worlds drinking water. Come out of the cave guys!

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

100

In other words, you are not interested in an actual discussion. You have refused to actually look at any of the information presented, here. You simply came here to cry doom.

Good bye.

Tom~