4 ms·

The rate may be dropping, but we're still adding 80m+ real people every year. N*rate is holding steady because N keeps increasing even though the rate is dropp

The rate may be dropping, but we're still adding 80m+ real people every year. N*rate is holding steady because N keeps increasing even though the rate is dropping.

naasking 9y ago
You're just confusing the issue. Population growth is decelerating and is expected to plateau within the next 80 years. Overpopulation is not going to be a problem, depopulation may actually become a problem.
- gaius 9y ago
  Overpopulation is not going to be a problem Overpopulation is already a problem, everywhere you look: pollution, climate change, depleted marine stocks, loss of biodiversity, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, melting ice caps, resource wars, all have one single root cause: too many people fighting over too little planet.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Overpopulation is already a problem, everywhere you look: pollution, climate change, depleted marine stocks, loss of biodiversity, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, melting ice caps, resource wars, all have one single root cause: too many people fighting over too little planet. No, there is not one single problem. I can just as easily blame incorrect market structures which enable negative externalities. A carbon tax corrects one such market distortion, for instance. The Earth can support many more humans than are currently living if our production methods didn't allow for negative externalities.
- rabidrat 9y ago
  Let me make this very clear: real population growth is not decelerating; it is holding quite steady. The rate (i.e. percent) of population growth is what is decreasing (and very slowly, at that). But we are still adding an additional billion humans every 12 years. With 7.6 billion humans already on the planet, the idea that "depopulation" could become a problem is utterly laughable. Four billion people could die tomorrow and the world population would only be set back 50 years. 90% of the human population could be wiped out, and there would still be 760m people in the world; hardly a crisis, unless you think that depopulation was a risk in 1760. Remember that Malthus first sounded the alarm on overpopulation in 1799, when there were "only" 1 billion people.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Let me make this very clear: real population growth is not decelerating; it is holding quite steady. The rate (i.e. percent) of population growth is what is decreasing (and very slowly, at that). I feel like you're misinterpreting my words just to be disagreeable. "Rate" is a velocity term, and the first derivative of the population count. "Deceleration" is the second derivative of the population, and the first derivative of the rate. Therefore, what you said is exactly what I said: population growth is decelerating. > With 7.6 billion humans already on the planet, the idea that "depopulation" could become a problem is utterly laughable. All of our social programs are based on the assumption that the subsequent generation will be larger than the previous one, and so can support them in their old age. This likely will no longer be the case within our lifetime. That's no laughing matter. Your arguments that eliminating a large fraction of the population would still leave plenty of people around are a complete red herring. What exactly is the fact that 760 million people would still be alive after 90% of the population is eliminated supposed to prove exactly? Are you even remotely aware of the problems this would cause? How supply chains for critical goods would simply collapse? How our rate of progress would grind to a halt? There are all sorts of metrics, like the rate of scientific progress, that are directly tied to population growth. Depopulation is a huge problem for many reasons.

The rate may be dropping, but we're still adding 80m+ real people every year. N*rate is holding steady because N keeps increasing even though the rate is dropping.

naasking 9y ago

You're just confusing the issue. Population growth is decelerating and is expected to plateau within the next 80 years. Overpopulation is not going to be a problem, depopulation may actually become a problem.

gaius 9y ago
Overpopulation is not going to be a problem Overpopulation is already a problem, everywhere you look: pollution, climate change, depleted marine stocks, loss of biodiversity, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, melting ice caps, resource wars, all have one single root cause: too many people fighting over too little planet.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Overpopulation is already a problem, everywhere you look: pollution, climate change, depleted marine stocks, loss of biodiversity, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, melting ice caps, resource wars, all have one single root cause: too many people fighting over too little planet. No, there is not one single problem. I can just as easily blame incorrect market structures which enable negative externalities. A carbon tax corrects one such market distortion, for instance. The Earth can support many more humans than are currently living if our production methods didn't allow for negative externalities.
rabidrat 9y ago
Let me make this very clear: real population growth is not decelerating; it is holding quite steady. The rate (i.e. percent) of population growth is what is decreasing (and very slowly, at that). But we are still adding an additional billion humans every 12 years. With 7.6 billion humans already on the planet, the idea that "depopulation" could become a problem is utterly laughable. Four billion people could die tomorrow and the world population would only be set back 50 years. 90% of the human population could be wiped out, and there would still be 760m people in the world; hardly a crisis, unless you think that depopulation was a risk in 1760. Remember that Malthus first sounded the alarm on overpopulation in 1799, when there were "only" 1 billion people.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Let me make this very clear: real population growth is not decelerating; it is holding quite steady. The rate (i.e. percent) of population growth is what is decreasing (and very slowly, at that). I feel like you're misinterpreting my words just to be disagreeable. "Rate" is a velocity term, and the first derivative of the population count. "Deceleration" is the second derivative of the population, and the first derivative of the rate. Therefore, what you said is exactly what I said: population growth is decelerating. > With 7.6 billion humans already on the planet, the idea that "depopulation" could become a problem is utterly laughable. All of our social programs are based on the assumption that the subsequent generation will be larger than the previous one, and so can support them in their old age. This likely will no longer be the case within our lifetime. That's no laughing matter. Your arguments that eliminating a large fraction of the population would still leave plenty of people around are a complete red herring. What exactly is the fact that 760 million people would still be alive after 90% of the population is eliminated supposed to prove exactly? Are you even remotely aware of the problems this would cause? How supply chains for critical goods would simply collapse? How our rate of progress would grind to a halt? There are all sorts of metrics, like the rate of scientific progress, that are directly tied to population growth. Depopulation is a huge problem for many reasons.