# Whatever happened to the Population Bomb? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790 "2007-12-04T17:06:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/42 "2007-12-07T20:44:37Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] However, citizens of developed, industrial countries have a much larger resource ‘footprint’. This is a serious concern with the rapidly industrializing China; 1.2 billion people, each demanding the kind of lifestyle enjoyed by the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, would double the demand on agricultural, mineral, energy, and other natural resources. It’s not clear that even the current level of resource use is sustainable in the long term, so a flattening or even slight reduction in population may not give relief. A world population that makes the kind of resource demands that North America and Western Europe does now is almost certainly unsustainable. And a rapid decrease in population may have its own undesirable economic effects, which is why nations in which population growth is going red are trying to push incentives to encourage people to have children. At some point, a reckoning will come due; it may not be catastrophic, but it will require a dramatic change in either resource allocation or resource usage. Hopefully development of energy production, desalination, agriculture, and ‘green’ manufacturing methods will soften the blow, but with current resources and technology the population cannot continue to grow to the predicted level of 10-12 billion and be indefinitely sustainable. Stranger [/QUOTE] I totally agree. On the other hand, wouldn’t the impact decrease without immigrants into Europe driven in part by population growth in their home countries? There is definitely going to be a race between the impact of industrialization on the bad side and the resulting decrease in fertility on the good side. However, things on this front look better than I did when I was in college (remember Make Room, Make Room?) - but worse in terms of AGW. I agree that the only permanent cure is long term population reduction, but 30 years ago we had no examples of that ever happening except from war, disease and famine. Today we do. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2007, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/43 "2007-12-08T00:28:49Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] Between 15% and 40% (depending on who you believe) of water used for modern agriculture is unsustainable on the long term (\>50 years), and while better water management and efficient point irrigation systems may extend some supplies, ultimately the canteen will run dry. And without water, there is no food, no cotton, and ultimately, no life. The frightening thing is that there is really no way to remediate or compensate for this; even if you had free desalination of ocean or silted water, the energy cost in transporting it across great distance, and especially uphill is grossly prohibitive. So when agriculture dependent upon unsustainable water resources runs out of water, that will represent a hard limit to agricultural growth, barring of course future sustainable methods. In general, the public has absolutely no clue as to just how much solar power–in the form of the hydrological cycle–powers free access to water that would otherwise be very expensive to purify and transport. [/QUOTE] I agree with the overall thrust of your posts that things will have to change and we have many unsustainable/idiotic practices, but I’m wondering about the transportation of water (mainly due to my ignorance). From what I understand, all you need to move water around (assuming no gravity assist) is electricity. And there are many states and nations which dedicate large chunks of their electrical production to that task (5-20% of their total pie). So as long as we increase our total electrical production, is it really that big of an economic loser? Aren’t we right now regularly transporting oil and natgas over hundreds and hundreds of miles through pipes? Or is that different somehow? I just don’t see why when push comes to shove we couldn’t set up desal plants on the Gulf of Mexico and pump that water to the interior states, powered by renewables in the long run – unless, of course. some other nation can replace our contribution to the world’s food supply at a cheaper price. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2007, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/44 "2007-12-08T04:38:59Z")
[QUOTE=Baldwin] ETA: If I had a drug that would cut human fertility to .1% of its current rate, I’d put it in the water supply. Population pressure is probably going to destroy the civilization I’ve come to enjoy. [/QUOTE] Nice little hyperbolic remark. What is that, schmuck, some kind of sick fantasy? Well, it is hyperbolic. Make it 10% instead; I like our species, and don’t want us going extinct. With a population of a billion, we (humans; probably not including me personally) could all be living in a paradise, with a liveable environment, long lives and low birthrates. Obviously, I wouldn’t have the moral right to do such a thing on my own, and it’s a good thing nobody has that kind of power. But, goddamnit, I do like that ol’ civilization, and I’m afraid I’ll see it crumble under unsupportable burdens in my lifetime. (By “civilization” I’m not referring to my own personal middle-class Western lifestyle. I’m talking about things like the rule of law, some respect for human rights and dignity, room in people’s lives for art and science and something more than a struggle to stay alive. Oh, and potable water, breathable air and some remaining wilderness are nice too.) Population pressure is the driving force behind every single really big problem that’s being talked about these days. Unless we control that force, everything else we do is just palliative care, when we need chemotherapy. We’re bailing water without fixing the big hole in the boat. For God’s sake, how many metaphors must we bring to bear before something gets done? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2007, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/45 "2007-12-08T05:57:07Z")
[QUOTE=Baldwin] For God’s sake, how many metaphors must we bring to bear before something gets done? [/QUOTE] Well, some rows don’t get hoed until the fat lady sings. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/46 "2007-12-09T08:43:16Z")
My understanding is that the optimum sustainable population for the Earth is 2 billion people, we’re about 4 billion over that limit and expected to top out at 7 billion _more_ than the planet can handle. We need to seriously change our way of living, if we’re going to survive. Even if we switch to clean energy sources, we’re going to wind up choking on our own filth because there’s just so many of us using things. Recycling and reducing consumption is part of the solution, but the “toughest nut” to crack (from an ideological standpoint _not_ a technological one) is the lack of longevity in the things we build. Not only do we need to make things more efficient, but we need to design them so that they last 10 years or more. It can be done, but we have to stop being so short sighted. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/47 "2007-12-09T14:44:36Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] My understanding is that the optimum sustainable population for the Earth is 2 billion people . . . [/QUOTE] Based on what? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/48 "2007-12-09T14:47:41Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] My understanding is that the optimum sustainable population for the Earth is 2 billion people, [/QUOTE] Says who? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/49 "2007-12-09T17:23:37Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] I agree with the overall thrust of your posts that things will have to change and we have many unsustainable/idiotic practices, but I’m wondering about the transportation of water (mainly due to my ignorance). From what I understand, all you need to move water around (assuming no gravity assist) is electricity. And there are many states and nations which dedicate large chunks of their electrical production to that task (5-20% of their total pie). So as long as we increase our total electrical production, is it really that big of an economic loser? Aren’t we right now regularly transporting oil and natgas over hundreds and hundreds of miles through pipes? Or is that different somehow? I just don’t see why when push comes to shove we couldn’t set up desal plants on the Gulf of Mexico and pump that water to the interior states, powered by renewables in the long run – unless, of course. some other nation can replace our contribution to the world’s food supply at a cheaper price. [/QUOTE] It’s not just a matter of energy, though you’re going to need a hell of a lot of that–a couple of orders of magnitude more than we currently produce for residential and industrial use now–as well for desalination and pumping losses, bringing its own problems with pollution and waste. (Even renewable energy is going to produce waste heat if it uses any thermodynamic cycle, as will nuclear fusion.) The sheer amount of water needed to irrigate food crops is overwhelming, even though it is invisible to the end user. We’re talking about several thousand gallons of water per bushel of grain or legume. Most of these areas are substantially inland and often hundreds of feet above sea level, and it’s not just a matter of getting from a wellhead to a refinery as with oil and gas; you’ll have to deliver water directly to every field via a vast network of lines that makes the most elaborate refinery complex built by Bechtel look like a small box of Tinkertoys. Anyone with experience in the oil industry will know how difficult it is to make even a modest refinery and distribution installation work reliably; now imagine billions of acres, each requiring thousands of gallons per day during growing season. And of course there will be losses from evaporation, broken pipes, et cetera. That is what it will take to replace the normal hydrological cycle processes that are normally powered by the Sun’s natural energy at 1kilowatt per square meter. This isn’t a problem to pass off as soluable by simple, predictable evolutionary advances in technology; this is a massive logistical nightmare, even if you could come up with the necessary energy sources. It’ll be much easier to change agriculture methods and relocate populations, even with all of the disruption that will cause. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [QUOTE=Tuckerfan] My understanding is that the optimum sustainable population for the Earth is 2 billion people . . . [/QUOTE] Based on what? [/QUOTE] I don’t know where **Tuckerfan** is getting his number, but estimates of sustainable population vary all over the place, based upon what set of assumptions you use regarding resource depletion, average resource footprint, advances in energy and agriculture technology, et cetera. This is not a simply bounded problem with static resources, and so any estimate that anyone chokes out has to be qualified by the bounding assumptions. The physical space argument (“See, there’s plenty of room in flyover country,”) is as specious as is the notion that technology will be static, or that a population living at a mere sustainment level will be stable and healthy. Reasonable estimates vary from around 1B (assuming a world population enjoying a modern industrial lifestyle with modest degrees of recycling and eventual transition to mostly non-fossil fuels) to ~16B (assuming sustainence agriculture and effectively infinite resources of energy and water). If you make some speculative assumptions about advances in energy and an essentially infinite expansion of agriculture capability you can get estimates upward of 100B (I’ve seen 1T, though that would cover most readily habitable landmasses with urban concentrations of people) but I don’t think this is a reasonable assumption, nor is the population likely to grow to this density unchecked by the internal economics of the population. For a long time the limiting parameter was assumed to be oil, and it may still be a driving economic force limiting expansion, but as detailed above, I suspect that water will be the limit for much of the current population growth, and likely one that such populations and governments are manifestly unprepared for. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/50 "2007-12-09T18:13:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Based on what? [/QUOTE] That’s the figure I’ve heard given in _The Population Bomb_ and other places. Admittedly, it seems a bit low, considering that we’ve got 6+ now, but when you figure that there’s barely a billion people with a First World lifestyle and the planet’s choking, it may _not_ be all that unreasonable (give or take a few hundred million). In addition to what **Stranger** has said as to the total population we can sustain, there’s the problem that we _don’t_ really have sustainable technology, yet. And who knows when that will happen? Even if it’s developed tomorrow, it’s going take a long time to filter out to everyone. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/51 "2007-12-09T19:45:47Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] That’s the figure I’ve heard given in _The Population Bomb_ and other places. Admittedly, it seems a bit low, considering that we’ve got 6+ now, but when you figure that there’s barely a billion people with a First World lifestyle and the planet’s choking, it may _not_ be all that unreasonable (give or take a few hundred million). [/QUOTE] Almost every other claim in The Population Bomb was wrong, so why should that one be right? It’s strange how that book gets such a blind pass when it was a book of very specific predictions that all turned out to be wrong. I would always have assumed that if you wrote a big famous book full of predictions of what would happen in the next twenty years, and they twenty years passed and none of your predictions was correct, people would laugh at you. And yet people still take that book seriously. Now, if you want to talk about “the population bomb” in the generic sense of a population problem, that’s one thing, but it was well established a long time ago that the book of that name by entomologist Paul Ehrlich is almost universally wrong in its specific claims and predictions. _Attempts to predict the future are almost always wrong,_ and the likelihood of their being wrong gets closer to 100% in proportion to 1. The length of time necessary for the prediction to come true increases and 2. the complexity of the issue the prediction concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/52 "2007-12-09T21:55:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Well, maybe Zoe is. So, Zoe, what was the Straight Dope like when it ran on a Difference Engine? Were there as many timeouts? [/QUOTE] No, but the only moderator was **Babbage** , and lots of us thought he was overly capricious and arbitrary in his moderating actions. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/53 "2008-04-11T18:09:01Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Almost every other claim in The Population Bomb was wrong, so why should that one be right? It’s strange how that book gets such a blind pass when it was a book of very specific predictions that all turned out to be wrong. I would always have assumed that if you wrote a big famous book full of predictions of what would happen in the next twenty years, and they twenty years passed and none of your predictions was correct, people would laugh at you. And yet people still take that book seriously. [/QUOTE] Thank you! About time someone mentioned that. An interesting side note is that while people keep bringing up The Population Bomb no one seems to bring up [Julian Simon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon#Paul_R._Ehrlich_-_1st_wager). I have never quite figured out why the guy who has been proven to be wrong keeps getting cited yet the guy who was right is ignored. Slee ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/54 "2008-04-11T21:06:16Z")
Without having read the thread yet…my view on what happened to the population bomb can be summed up thus: Ostrich, head, sand. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/55 "2008-04-11T21:11:32Z")
[QUOTE=sleestak] Thank you! About time someone mentioned that. An interesting side note is that while people keep bringing up The Population Bomb no one seems to bring up [Julian Simon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon#Paul_R._Ehrlich_-_1st_wager). I have never quite figured out why the guy who has been proven to be wrong keeps getting cited yet the guy who was right is ignored. Slee [/QUOTE] Of course, Simon was only right about the price of copper in the _short term_. The price has skyrocketed and thefts of copper are becoming increasingly common. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/56 "2008-04-12T14:39:32Z")
[QUOTE=Baldwin] Nice little hyperbolic remark. What is that, schmuck, some kind of sick fantasy? [/QUOTE] You know better than to hurl personal insults in **GD**. Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/57 "2008-04-12T15:23:14Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Of course, Simon was only right about the price of copper in the _short term_. The price has skyrocketed and thefts of copper are becoming increasingly common. [/QUOTE] I’m skeptical of this claim. I did a google search, and apparently the current price of copper is [4 dollars per pound](http://news.smh.com.au/copper-price-rallies-on-rate-speculation/20080410-2518.html) I next did a google search on “copper” “price” and “century” and found [the New York Times article from 1918](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D01E5DC133FE433A25755C0A9679C946996D6CF) According to the article, copper hit a high of 27.2 cents per pound in 1916. According to [this](http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) inflation calculator, 27.2 cents in 1916 is equivalent to approximately $5.50 today. Of course the price in 1916 was likely affected by World War I. But still, it’s clear that there are always short term swings in the price of commodities. Just because copper has been expensive lately doesn’t mean that Julian Simon was wrong. Here’s a quote attributed to Simon from Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > “More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/58 "2008-04-12T16:09:22Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] You know better than to hurl personal insults in **GD**. Do not do this again. [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] It was four months ago, tom. Let it go already. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/59 "2008-04-12T16:16:18Z")
“Population explosion? You’re soaking in it.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790/60 "2008-04-13T01:56:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] It was four months ago, tom. Let it go already. 😃 [/QUOTE] One more reason to refrain from re-opening zombie threads. 😛 This one is closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whatever-happened-to-the-population-bomb/428790.md?page=2)