3 ms·

In 1950 global population was 2.5 billion people, now 7.5. That's 3x in 67 years. Technological advances can help us increase the amount of people we can sustai

In 1950 global population was 2.5 billion people, now 7.5. That's 3x in 67 years. Technological advances can help us increase the amount of people we can sustain, but eventually there is going to be a limit. The limit will not only be because of CO2. There are other situations that need to be managed. Population is increasing, and the lifestyle of individuals is rising, making each person have a larger cost on the environment. Topsoil, the soil we grow our food in, takes long to regenerate and we are depleting it faster than it regenerates. Overfishing cannot be stopped. Fish will be gone soon, and we largely depend on it. Fish as food, fishmeal for animals and fish oil as fertilizer (fish emulsion).

paublyrne 10y ago
The increase in global population is not necessarily exponential. A lot of it can be explained by increases in life expectancy, and those increases seem to have - for now - a relatively fixed limit. Longer life expectancy does not increase the number of children each person has (for the most part, leaving ageing rock stars to one side). Greater wealth seems to also have discourage people from having children if the birth rates in wester countries are any indication. I think we can do more to tackle the specific problems you mention through regulation and better policy, whereas a falling global population on its own would do little or nothing to combat them.
- partycoder 10y ago
  I did not say growth was exponential, I only pointed out what growth has been in the last years. It is reasonable to expect growth rate will decline. Right now a billion people is predicted to be added every ~13 years. Even if the growth rate declines, population cannot continue to grow forever.
rimliu 10y ago
We are already past the peak child. Fish will no go anywhere, it will just be farmed more.
- partycoder 10y ago
  Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion but I disagree. Ocean acidification from CO2 absorption, plastic pollution (including microplastics), overfishing, the destruction of the species that influence the oceanic carbon cycle and the overall increasing frequency of harmful algal blooms... Not a good forecast for the continued survival of fish.

paublyrne 10y ago

The increase in global population is not necessarily exponential. A lot of it can be explained by increases in life expectancy, and those increases seem to have - for now - a relatively fixed limit. Longer life expectancy does not increase the number of children each person has (for the most part, leaving ageing rock stars to one side). Greater wealth seems to also have discourage people from having children if the birth rates in wester countries are any indication. I think we can do more to tackle the specific problems you mention through regulation and better policy, whereas a falling global population on its own would do little or nothing to combat them.

partycoder 10y ago
I did not say growth was exponential, I only pointed out what growth has been in the last years. It is reasonable to expect growth rate will decline. Right now a billion people is predicted to be added every ~13 years. Even if the growth rate declines, population cannot continue to grow forever.

rimliu 10y ago

We are already past the peak child. Fish will no go anywhere, it will just be farmed more.

partycoder 10y ago
Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion but I disagree. Ocean acidification from CO2 absorption, plastic pollution (including microplastics), overfishing, the destruction of the species that influence the oceanic carbon cycle and the overall increasing frequency of harmful algal blooms... Not a good forecast for the continued survival of fish.