4 ms·

People are just willfully blind when it comes to population. Thus you can have all this number crunching alongside a complete failure to talk about the role of

People are just willfully blind when it comes to population. Thus you can have all this number crunching alongside a complete failure to talk about the role of medicine, the role of technological progress as a whole. This is a blindness to the essential nature of our time, which is rampant, accelerating progress towards the generation of more resources as they are needed. You can't just throw up a thesis that population scales by energy (since, hey, population growth has a much better correlation with medicine and computing power and bandwidth) and then put a question mark on the chart of what happens after oil. We have perfectly good substitutes for oil now, and they are being made ever cheaper and more effective by vast numbers of people in response to past years of high oil prices. Which are on the way out for now because other groups of people have been uncovering vast new exploitable reserves of oil, and much cheaper and better ways to extract it and use it. Meanwhile other people are working on getting to orbit, so as to provide infinite room, and really anyone who argues that somehow we're going to somehow run out of either energy or space any time soon just isn't thinking clearly about how the world really works. People respond to future expectations of price. Nothing is static. The world will be upheaved and changed by as many people as it takes to replace a high price resource with a low price one. That will keep on happening and Malthusians of the death cult environmentalist variety like the author of this piece (let's kill some people, who goes first) will keep on looking confused as they try to explain their contrary viewpoint while ignoring the reality of what is going on day by day around them. These people are evergreen of course. Here's an interesting reference from a time when there were on a couple hundred million people in the world: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7723 http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7723 "In the year 200 AD, there were approximately 180million human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time a Christian philosopher called Tertullian argued: ‘We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… already nature does not sustain us.’" And what has changed between then and now, and what will change between today and tomorrow? Think on that.

acqq 11y ago
Tertullian knew what he talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman...
LangdonAlder 11y ago
Great response. Panic over overpopulation is a tired canard that has become particularly dangerous in recent years as declining rich-world birth rates wreak havoc on societies that lack young workers to support aging populations. Japan's thirty year economic stagnation should serve as a warning to any society that seeks to actively discourage fertility.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago
  Re: Japan - Economist Dean Baker makes the case that Japan's population decline is not all bad: "The decline in population is in fact a benefit in many respects for Japan. It is a very crowded island with expensive land prices. A falling population will reduce the pressure on land making housing more affordable. It will also reduce congestion in cities. In addition, the decline in population will make it easier for Japan to meet commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions..." http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/contrary-to-the-nyts-assertion-japan-does-not-qface-a-looming-demographic-squeezeq http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/contrary-to-the-nyt...
  - kazinator 11y ago
    > It is a very crowded island with expensive land prices. But that is only a popular image of Japan. Areas clustered close to the central districts of large cities are crowded with expensive land prices. But even in the suburban outskirts of the Tokyo metropolitan area (pop. 37 million), there is plenty of space. Farm land, forests, empty tracts of land, golf courses, ... you name it. Most residential dwellings are fully detached single family homes. We have Google Street View; anyone can check this easily. E.g. Noda City, area close to the Edo river, not far from Umesato train station: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9133252,139.8796061,3a,75y,26.22h,77.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfbg-4wn5bFksUqzMlaRdeQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dfbg-4wn5bFksUqzMlaRdeQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D296.9118%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9133252,139.8796061,3a,75y,2...
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
strlen 11y ago
I strongly agree with the sentiment here, but a few things: > Meanwhile other people are working on getting to orbit, so as to provide infinite room In addition to orbit, there's Antartica (it's certainly not colder than Mars, with more plentiful water ice and oxygen), oceans (desalinization + sea based habitats), not to mention very sparsely populated parts of the US just a few hours drive away from Bay Area. By all means, let's go to orbit, explore colonize the solar system, and at the very least send probes[] to the stars. One other side effect of tremendous growth in energy production: we can use that energy to do things we've never thought powerful, such as accelerate a probe to ~5% of c, allowing a probe to reach the Alpha Centauri system within the lifetime of someone born today... > "In the year 200 AD, there were approximately 180million human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time a Christian philosopher called Tertullian argued: ‘We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… already nature does not sustain us.’" Imagine if the population did stay at ~200mm through the time period. _What_ tremendous advances would we have missed out on had the extra billions of people not been born?
carapace 11y ago
There are now more ships in the oceans than fish. [ https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/ ] Does it matter that we won't run out of energy or space if we run out of life itself? At this point iconic species like the Monarch butterfly and the Chinook salmon are in serious trouble. Calling environmentalists a "death cult" is hardly appropriate. I know very well that many of them are very naive when it comes to "sound bite" advocating, and there are a few extreme crazies that don't hesitate to advance scenarios that imply mass extinction of great numbers of people. But the author of this piece isn't one of them and, frankly, deserves better. At least admit that your position is one of faith, not reason. Do you predict the future? No. I have faith in science and human nature, I think we will solve our problems through e.g. fusion and psychology. But do you want your grandchildren to grow up in a world that has no Snow Leopards? No tigers? No whales? I believe future generations will hate us, profoundly, if we don't take care of the living world that is our inheritance and legacy.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > There are now more ships in the oceans than fish. Only if you count the fully-loaded mass (not number) of ships to the mass of the fish. But even then, you're comparing the fish to ships+cargo, not just to the ships. A quick search doesn't show me evidence, but I expect that modern ships carry considerably more in cargo than they themselves weigh. (That is, the fully-loaded displacement of the ship is considerably more than double the empty displacement.)

acqq 11y ago

Tertullian knew what he talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman...

LangdonAlder 11y ago

Great response. Panic over overpopulation is a tired canard that has become particularly dangerous in recent years as declining rich-world birth rates wreak havoc on societies that lack young workers to support aging populations. Japan's thirty year economic stagnation should serve as a warning to any society that seeks to actively discourage fertility.

HillaryBriss 11y ago
Re: Japan - Economist Dean Baker makes the case that Japan's population decline is not all bad: "The decline in population is in fact a benefit in many respects for Japan. It is a very crowded island with expensive land prices. A falling population will reduce the pressure on land making housing more affordable. It will also reduce congestion in cities. In addition, the decline in population will make it easier for Japan to meet commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions..." http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/contrary-to-the-nyts-assertion-japan-does-not-qface-a-looming-demographic-squeezeq http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/contrary-to-the-nyt...
- kazinator 11y ago
  > It is a very crowded island with expensive land prices. But that is only a popular image of Japan. Areas clustered close to the central districts of large cities are crowded with expensive land prices. But even in the suburban outskirts of the Tokyo metropolitan area (pop. 37 million), there is plenty of space. Farm land, forests, empty tracts of land, golf courses, ... you name it. Most residential dwellings are fully detached single family homes. We have Google Street View; anyone can check this easily. E.g. Noda City, area close to the Edo river, not far from Umesato train station: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9133252,139.8796061,3a,75y,26.22h,77.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfbg-4wn5bFksUqzMlaRdeQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dfbg-4wn5bFksUqzMlaRdeQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D296.9118%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9133252,139.8796061,3a,75y,2...
  - selimthegrim 11y ago

strlen 11y ago

I strongly agree with the sentiment here, but a few things: > Meanwhile other people are working on getting to orbit, so as to provide infinite room In addition to orbit, there's Antartica (it's certainly not colder than Mars, with more plentiful water ice and oxygen), oceans (desalinization + sea based habitats), not to mention very sparsely populated parts of the US just a few hours drive away from Bay Area. By all means, let's go to orbit, explore colonize the solar system, and at the very least send probes[] to the stars. One other side effect of tremendous growth in energy production: we can use that energy to do things we've never thought powerful, such as accelerate a probe to ~5% of c, allowing a probe to reach the Alpha Centauri system within the lifetime of someone born today... > "In the year 200 AD, there were approximately 180million human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time a Christian philosopher called Tertullian argued: ‘We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… already nature does not sustain us.’" Imagine if the population did stay at ~200mm through the time period. _What_ tremendous advances would we have missed out on had the extra billions of people not been born?

carapace 11y ago

There are now more ships in the oceans than fish. [ https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/ ] Does it matter that we won't run out of energy or space if we run out of life itself? At this point iconic species like the Monarch butterfly and the Chinook salmon are in serious trouble. Calling environmentalists a "death cult" is hardly appropriate. I know very well that many of them are very naive when it comes to "sound bite" advocating, and there are a few extreme crazies that don't hesitate to advance scenarios that imply mass extinction of great numbers of people. But the author of this piece isn't one of them and, frankly, deserves better. At least admit that your position is one of faith, not reason. Do you predict the future? No. I have faith in science and human nature, I think we will solve our problems through e.g. fusion and psychology. But do you want your grandchildren to grow up in a world that has no Snow Leopards? No tigers? No whales? I believe future generations will hate us, profoundly, if we don't take care of the living world that is our inheritance and legacy.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> There are now more ships in the oceans than fish. Only if you count the fully-loaded mass (not number) of ships to the mass of the fish. But even then, you're comparing the fish to ships+cargo, not just to the ships. A quick search doesn't show me evidence, but I expect that modern ships carry considerably more in cargo than they themselves weigh. (That is, the fully-loaded displacement of the ship is considerably more than double the empty displacement.)