Chief Pedant The argument you are making presumes that there will be no more advances in efficiency, filtering, or recycling of materials. Before long we’ll be strip mining landfills and driving electric cars.
Your idea of ‘in time’ is based off of an entirely invented timeline when time runs out not in any specific time but in some nebulous near future that’s ‘closer than most people realize’.
Chief P, you do seem to be saying it is not the quanity of the people but how they live, you do know that? Any way, indeed if improving the standard of living and raising the education level meant coming up to America’s CO2 emission levels or even more broadly emulating out consumption habits, then yes, the ecologic cost would far offset the benefit of decreased population growth and then some.
But it need not.
Again, look at my case study of the MENA region - those countries that have indeed raised the standard of living and women’s education levels and with it decreased the birth rate - and they did it without joining the ranks of the big emitters. And so far India’s per capita CO2 emissions is a paltry 1.20 metric ton/person compared to America’s 20.
But even more for these underdeveloped parts of the world we are not having to swap out for green resources - the energy system to support substantially improved standards of living there mostly does not yet exist. Instead we need to help make sure that the systems that do develop are ones that do not add much CO2 per unit energy produced. As we discussed some in the other thread, some of these systems can even be net carbon negative. (See, for example, the case of biochar which produces energy, locks carbon in the ground, and increases agricultural productivity and water retention capacity of marginal soil all in one fell swoop in a cheap manner that can be distributed easily.) Other possibilities for Africa include extending participation in a proposed supergrid. Heck, most of these underdeveloped areas have excellent solar resources. And many parts of both South America and Africa have good wind resources too. A world in which carbon emissions are priced globally sets Africa in particular to benefit - if only they could get their political houses in order. They have raw resources both in minerals and in low or no CO2 energy. They have the populations in need of jobs. Add in some investments in developing an educated workforce and some stable political and non-corrupt political systems (okay that last seems a bit pie in the sky) and Africa could be the new Tiger.
But as you cogently point out that the problem is not the number of people but the manner in which we, the human race, provide for ourselves. And from your argument it follows that even someone who does not believe that global climate change is a real threat, must recognize that humanity’s current and near future volume mandates that we proceed with full recognition that this world is only big enough for all of us if we do it carefully and with foresight.
Quoth mswas:
Yes, that’s what Markxxx said.
Hey, in theory our technology could get so good we could put 20 billion in a land mass the size of North America and support them all using only the same land mass…
What will happen is that the current and future population will overwhelm the earth long before that technology gets developed. Your unconcern about overpopulation is essentially predicated on hope. While that makes for a rosier state of mind, it’s not a plan until you can prove that population will be limited until and unless those technologies are implemented. There is no indication of that. I offer the Tata car in India as an example. We want cars. We don’t say, “Well; we can have cars if we can first show they won’t worsen the toll on the earth.”
Here are three areas all directly dependent on population that are more critical than AGW: degradation of farmland (and, of course, degradation of whatever the land used to be before we turned it into farmland–a rainforest, e.g.); fresh water; and depletion of the ocean. And of course, AGW itself, for those of you clinging to that as a crisis, is utterly dependent on numbers; reduce the population by half and CO2 is reduced in half…
That people can focus so much on AGW but refuse to acknowledge overpopulation as the fundamental problems can’t seem to do the simplest calculation: Effect per person X number of persons = Total effect. For any effect you don’t like, one solution is to reduce the effect, and the second solution is to decrease the number of persons.
Right now the number of persons is going to overwhelm any and all efforts at reducing the effect per person.
I offer no solutions–another thread, and I think the overpopulation horse has left the barn–but simply an observation that too many peeps is easily the most obvious and the most pressing problem facing the earth. Lotta smart folk will work to make sure most humans survive whatever problems overpopulation brings, but at the end of all that, Gaia is gonna feel pretty raped.
But we can come back here in 50 years and talk about it then if Cecil can hang on to the Dope long enough.
If humans can get through this then who gives a shit how the planet feels? It’s a big ball of iron and silicon.
An environmental problem matters to me, as a human, primarily if it means it’s going to hurt humans.
That’s a very presumptuous statement. What, for example would be the impact of building massive desalination plants in Africa and pumping the water to green the Sahara? They’d be powered by solar or nuclear energy for minimal CO2 impact. Recall that during the last ice age, much of the Sahara was savannah. Or try the American deserts instead of the African ones. On a smaller scale, how about California, where the fruit-growers are complaining about a lack of water? Sure we’re talking about a huge cost.
Realistically, what’s going to be built first - that or two dozen more car, cell phone, and HDTV factories? That or more plastic toys? That or more fossil fuel plants? That or more rainforest levelled to grow corn and raise cattle?
Cisco, as you point out, my writing is not as clear as I would fantasize …
Sorry for my lack of clarity.
People think we need crude oil. But we don’t. You think that’s just “pushing the need back one step.” My point is different.
My point is that we don’t need the raw materials, like iron ore and crude oil. We need what they can do for us, things like transportation and shelter. While we currently may get those from a given resource, we don’t need the resource – we need the transportation and shelter, not the iron ore and the crude oil.
For example, we don’t need copper ore, or copper, to move our information around the planet. We used to require copper for that … but now, mostly, we use glass and microwaves.
We don’t need the copper. We just need what it can do for us, which is a completely and totally different challenge. This was the point of my asking how much of the world’s “provable resource” of tables and chairs we have used, and how much remains.
Well … no. At present, by virtually any measurement (e.g. infant mortality, education of women, calories per day, % of people below $1/day) the world, both the rich and the poor, are better off now than at any time in the history of the planet. In other words, we are solving the problems faster than we are increasing the population.
I don’t see what the big deal about population is. I have lived through the doubling of the population (3 billion to 6 billion, 1950 - 2000). At the end of that, we are better fed and better clothed than we have ever been.
Some might be frightened of another 50% increase in population (projected 6 billion to 9 billion, 2000-2050). I’m not. It is a challenge, a huge one, but we met a larger challenge in my lifetime and overcame it. I have great faith in the ingenuity of hungry people … and we’re all hungry in one way or another.
I appreciate your precognition abilities and all but somehow I need more than your say so. Especially since the technology I mentioned all exists right now. The issue is not the technology being developed (although sure it could be improved upon and made more cost-effective), it is the will (or lack thereof) to deploy it.
Will we develop the international systems required to make it so? Or will we fail to act until the chance to do so effectively is long past and the consequences of our collective inaction are upon us? Sure, the issue is dealing with more people in the same space, but that is not the problem - the problem is in getting us to act together out of informed self-interest.
And that is not something that I am naively just assuming will occur. Cisco’s cynicism may be well founded. But here’s the set-up of the game: we can assume that the world cannot act together out of informed self-interest and have a high probability of disaster within the century as both the total global population and emission per capita increase. (I have 4 kids and expect grandchildren someday - I care about that.) Or we can try to work together to our mutual long term benefit and have some possibility of success in both decreasing population growth in the developing world and keeping its emission footprint small by helping it build the energy infrastructure that releases little CO2, by investing in the educational institutions needed, and by planning for the future agricultural needs.
It doesn’t seem like a tough choice to me, but what do I know?
Who knows what may be realistic 20 or 50 or 100 years from now?
This looks like a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. You’re basically saying we have more food and money than ever, without realizing the growing all that food and buying all the things that money can buy are major problems. More people ultimately make it worse. No matter how you twist it, or where you reassign the problem to, it always comes back to that.
So, speculation is ok as long as it ignores history and supports your conclusion?
Except that such a conclusion isn’t supported by the facts. When you look at the massive environmental destruction wrought in the Americas or Australasia or the fertile crescent by people at very low population densities, and then compare that to the relatively minor problems caused by people at population densities orders of magnitude higher it’s impossible to reach the conclusion that more people ultimately make it worse.
People are a resource. The ultimate resource in fact. All things being equal the more people you have the more brains you have working on solutions and ways to improve efficiency. As a result the more people you have the better it makes it.
I really don’t know where this “more people makes it worse” meme came from, but I really can’t see any way to justify it objectively. When you look at the problems caused by growing food and spending money by people at low population densities, and then compare it to the damage caused by people at high densities there is no obvious pattern at all, and any correlation that may exist is negative.
People who claim that population is the problem are the ones who are ignoring history. Yes, some things have worsened as population has increased, but most things have improved. There’s certainly no historical basis for the claim that more people make things worse.
Think about what you just said. Call Americans/Australasians/Ferticle Crescent people (low density/high impact) As, and call high density/low impact peoples Bs. You’re saying make Bs like As. See the problem? Industrialization, growing economies, “progress” makes things worse (on the planet, in the long run, which will backfire at some point), and more people competing for those things, fighting for those things, makes things worse. The planet is holding 6 billion people, for now, but how many Americans could it hold?
What has improved? I’m pretty sure we’re working with different definitions of words like improved here. The toll we’ve taken on the planet to get to where we are is not an improvement on anything. Yes, we live longer and have cell phones, wars, and New York City now, but at what cost? We’re destroying ecosystems at alarming rates. Fish and trees are disappearing due to overfarming. Artifically huge (manmade) populations of cattle are farting holes in the ozone. Nobody knows what’s happening to the bees that pollenate all this food we shove down our throats. Most of us are now fat and/or depressed and/or dependent on drugs. Should we bet the long-term survival of the species so things can be “better” now? I’m sure you’ve heard the proverb: unsustainable can’t go on forever.
By the way, I’m not saying population is “the” problem; if I said that, point out where and I’ll probably agree that I misspoke. I’m saying it’s a problem. In fact, symptom might be a better word. But a fever is a symptom too, and it can kill you. Like I said in post #35: if we solve our other problems first, then let’s grow to our hearts’ content, but until then, I think more humans doing the same things that are causing problems now = more problems.
They’ll be built at the same time by two different corporations catering to their different and not in any way mutually exclusive markets.
And I should’ve mentioned, things are only “better” now on a subjective level and for a minority of people, and that won’t change on the track we’re on now no matter how much industrialization and/or population growth occurs. It won’t change without a MAJOR paradigm-shift in human thought and culture. More people, for now, essentially means more poor, starving people.
You really think so? Are they in the works now? Because, without checking, I bet the facilities I mentioned are.
There are a lot of things in the works. Desalination is in the idea stage more than the actual building stage. Solar Power’s rate of growth is exponential. It has been developing at a breakneck pace and will start becoming a huge boon to people worldwide in the next few years.
You have setup a false dichotomy and asked me to refute it. New Industries don’t have the same capital as old ones, yeah and? Water shortages are a big deal and people are now starting to take them quite seriously, but it takes a while to get things from the conceptual stage to having a working model. California is prime for that because there is only so much water they can get from the Colorado River after Colorado and Arizona. Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
You are the one who is ignoring history here really. Some of the greatest environmental devastation of all time was caused by the Mongol hordes in the Middle-East, which is now a vast desert because of them. This was at a time of far fewer people than today. Then of course what you view as the Industrialized world and its attendant problems are things that have occurred largely within the last 50 years. You are extrapolating long timelines of doom and gloom based off of a historical aberration. The nastiest damage was done between the 40s and the 80s, back when lakes caught fire, the problems were solved very quickly after that.
Meanwhile watch this and relax. Greening the Desert
No, I have no idea what you are saying.
Except that, as I have pointed out, that isn’t supported by any objective standard whatsoever. The worst damage has been caused by non-industrialised, stable or shrinking economy and stagnated peoples at low or reltaively low densities. In contrast truly high densities such as the modern US have caused far little damage.
You are now blatantly begging the question. You just know that more people make it worse, because if there were more people it would be worse.
But what is this claim based on?As I have noted, the amount of damage declines with increasing population, so objectively it could hold more Americans the more Americans there are for it to hold. It seems to be a bottomless cup. The more Americans you have working to solve problems and make thing better the fewer problems you have and the better things are.
That’s my answer, base don the apparent facts. What is your answer, and what is it based on?
I have no idea what definition you are using, but as other shave noted, by every objective standard of improve things have improved. Poverty, environmental standards, health, education, opportunity, food, war and so forth. The list is endless and all has improved.
As I pointe dout, and as you seem to have ignored, it is a massive improvement on the toll taken by people living at low population densities. And that the the only standard that matter in this thread.
At the cost of better health, fewer species extinctions, increased forest cover, less warfare, cleaner water and so on ad so forth.
That is the “cost”. The objective, measurable and verifiable benefits.
Nope, it;s an objective fact that ecosystems are being destroyed at rates orders of magnitude lower than the rates under lower propulation densities.
Actually at much lower rates than they were under lower population densities.
Bullshit. Purely and simply every word in that sentence is bullshit. Including “are” and “the”.
And so his tirade goes on and on, all the while ignoring the simple fact that these things are all much, much better than they were under lower population densities.
So the idea that increased population makes things worse simply can’t be supported objectively. It allhinges on begging the question. Nothing more.
So none of this stuff is happening now while everything I listed marches on.
How did I set up a false dichotomy? It’s a balance. Someone said X - 10 is about to happen or could happen at some point in the future, and I said X + 100 is already happening right now and will continue to happen. I’m not seeing a false dichotomy there.
I’ve never heard that but, assuming you’re right, how does adding more people with more destructive technology make Chinese tea out of that? You’re saying people destroyed an ecosystem way back when so . . . more people can’t destroy ecosystems now? I don’t get it.
Who’s extrapolating long timelines or doom and gloom? I’m saying the logical conclusion of fucking up the planet is . . . a fucked up planet. And I’m not saying we can’t change it. Ignoring it or pretending it’s not a problem won’t get us anywhere, though.
People born today are generally either going to be “haves” - consumers of cars, fossil fuels, plastics, cattle, overharvested fish, etc, or “have nots” - victims of starvation, political oppression, treatable/preventable disease, etc. I just think we, as a species, should get our house in order and work at solving these problems before adding billions more people to each of these categories. Our choices matter on a global level more than ever before in history. Horse shit made a mess but it also eventually was absorbed into the ground to fertilize new life; not so what comes out of a car’s tailpipe, or a jumbo jet’s.
Nonsense.
Things are better now by every objestive measure I’ve ever seen.
And they are better now for the vast majority of people.
Wherever did you get the idea that it is subjective and only true for a minority? Nothing could be further form the truth
There are more people now than at any time in the last 6, 000 years.
Fewer people are starving now than at any time in the last 6, 000 years.
The wealth of the poorest 5% and the poorest quartile are both higher than at any time in the last 6, 000 years.
How do you reconcile those three facts with your belief that “more people means more poor, starving people”?
Either your belief is wrong and based on nothing. Or you dispute the facts. Which is it? Because if you dispute the facts I’m sure I can easily find references to dispel your ignorance.