6 ms·

Human population by itself is not the measure we should worry about. With enough technological progress, the earth could reasonably sustain 100+ billion people.

Human population by itself is not the measure we should worry about. With enough technological progress, the earth could reasonably sustain 100+ billion people. The problem lies in the doubling of human population in little more than a generation. The problem lies in that we are not being sustainable with this. We are depleting resources whilst polluting and rapidly changing our environment. For the moment, we only have one small rock in which to live and breathe. If we have to shit where we eat, then let's at least try to shit cleanly.

ahje 8y ago
Once that technological progress has been made, and we have implemented those new technologies on a global scale, then sure. Right here and right now, we're still largely relying on fossil fuels and machinery up to several decades old in order to produce food and considering it seems to be hard to even get up to modern standards, hoping for future tech to save the day seems far fetched.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  What if part of the reason is the fact that the new tech isn't better enough to justify switching - yet?
  - ahje 8y ago
    Sure. Do you believe we will be able to develop this new tech AND deploy it on a global scale within the next 10-15 years? Because that's how long we've got to turn this around before it turns really ugly. I don't think we can do that (although it is arguable that any drastic measures taken now doesn't have to be permanent, and that things can change again once we do have all that new fancy tech)
philipps 8y ago
There is no scientific basis for the claim that the earth could sustain 100+ billion people. These types of unsubstantiated claims are not just false but dangerous, as they suggest there is no need for significant action and change.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  IMO, the claims that population is the problem is far more dangerous. Population growth is mostly a solved problem. All population growth models have the growth being much slower over the next 50 years than it was over the past 50. Most viable models actually show the growth reversing, and some even show it peaking near current levels. Does that mean we've fixed the problems? Far from it. The number of people is only a really small factor in the damage that people do. One jet-setting westerner does many orders of magnitude more damage than the typical subsistence farmer; and the damage done by subsistence farmers varies quite widely. (Some are causing desertification and chopping down trees) And of course there are some people doing more good than harm, reducing the population reduces those people too. No matter what the population is, we have a lot of work to do. Greenhouse gases are the most visible problem; there are lots of others.
  - philipps 8y ago
    I didn’t make the claim that population is the biggest problem. I responded to the incorrect suggestion that population size is not a problem (which you repeat without offering any evidence that we could sustain ourselves). Growth is by no means a “solved” problem. Growth is expected to slow, but even at our current population size we are consuming an unsustainable amount of resources. And growth will slow as a result of increased wealth > higher consumption. Given that we live within the finite ecosystem of of our planet, this means we need to make significant changes and we need to make them now.
- jonsen 8y ago
  The size of the worlds livestock is around 100 billion. If all humans turned vegetarian, the human population could easily be of the that size.
  - bootlooped 8y ago
    I think that's making the assumption that having 100 billion livestock + the current human population is sustainable. Even if that were the case, humans consume a lot more resources than animals living on factory farms.
code_duck 8y ago
With ‘enough’ technological progress, anything is possible since that’s the definition of enough.
- montenegrohugo 8y ago
  No, technology is constrained by physical and logical laws. No amount of technological progress can make 1+1 = 2. Similarly, it can reasonably be stated that no amount of technological progress will make earth be able to sustain X population
  - adwn 8y ago
    > No amount of technological progress can make 1+1 = 2. I agree, 1+1=2 will forever remain in the realm of science fiction. But what would humanity be without its hopes and dreams?
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I don’t find those examples persuasive. One is a very simple logical impossibility because 1+1=2 is a very basic assumption of our system of mathematics. The other is a very complex issue, and I also disageee with your conclusion. That with ‘enough’ technical progress the earth can support a given amount of life makes sense to me.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
That's correct. The concept of overpopulation is quite misleading because it blames the sheer number of people regardless of the extreme inequality in consumption and pollution. "World’s richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while poorest 3.5 billion account for just a tenth" Source: https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35 https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/...

ahje 8y ago

Once that technological progress has been made, and we have implemented those new technologies on a global scale, then sure. Right here and right now, we're still largely relying on fossil fuels and machinery up to several decades old in order to produce food and considering it seems to be hard to even get up to modern standards, hoping for future tech to save the day seems far fetched.

TomMarius 8y ago
What if part of the reason is the fact that the new tech isn't better enough to justify switching - yet?
- ahje 8y ago
  Sure. Do you believe we will be able to develop this new tech AND deploy it on a global scale within the next 10-15 years? Because that's how long we've got to turn this around before it turns really ugly. I don't think we can do that (although it is arguable that any drastic measures taken now doesn't have to be permanent, and that things can change again once we do have all that new fancy tech)

philipps 8y ago

There is no scientific basis for the claim that the earth could sustain 100+ billion people. These types of unsubstantiated claims are not just false but dangerous, as they suggest there is no need for significant action and change.

bryanlarsen 8y ago
IMO, the claims that population is the problem is far more dangerous. Population growth is mostly a solved problem. All population growth models have the growth being much slower over the next 50 years than it was over the past 50. Most viable models actually show the growth reversing, and some even show it peaking near current levels. Does that mean we've fixed the problems? Far from it. The number of people is only a really small factor in the damage that people do. One jet-setting westerner does many orders of magnitude more damage than the typical subsistence farmer; and the damage done by subsistence farmers varies quite widely. (Some are causing desertification and chopping down trees) And of course there are some people doing more good than harm, reducing the population reduces those people too. No matter what the population is, we have a lot of work to do. Greenhouse gases are the most visible problem; there are lots of others.
- philipps 8y ago
  I didn’t make the claim that population is the biggest problem. I responded to the incorrect suggestion that population size is not a problem (which you repeat without offering any evidence that we could sustain ourselves). Growth is by no means a “solved” problem. Growth is expected to slow, but even at our current population size we are consuming an unsustainable amount of resources. And growth will slow as a result of increased wealth > higher consumption. Given that we live within the finite ecosystem of of our planet, this means we need to make significant changes and we need to make them now.
jonsen 8y ago
The size of the worlds livestock is around 100 billion. If all humans turned vegetarian, the human population could easily be of the that size.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  I think that's making the assumption that having 100 billion livestock + the current human population is sustainable. Even if that were the case, humans consume a lot more resources than animals living on factory farms.

code_duck 8y ago

With ‘enough’ technological progress, anything is possible since that’s the definition of enough.

montenegrohugo 8y ago
No, technology is constrained by physical and logical laws. No amount of technological progress can make 1+1 = 2. Similarly, it can reasonably be stated that no amount of technological progress will make earth be able to sustain X population
- adwn 8y ago
  > No amount of technological progress can make 1+1 = 2. I agree, 1+1=2 will forever remain in the realm of science fiction. But what would humanity be without its hopes and dreams?
- code_duck 8y ago
  I don’t find those examples persuasive. One is a very simple logical impossibility because 1+1=2 is a very basic assumption of our system of mathematics. The other is a very complex issue, and I also disageee with your conclusion. That with ‘enough’ technical progress the earth can support a given amount of life makes sense to me.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

That's correct. The concept of overpopulation is quite misleading because it blames the sheer number of people regardless of the extreme inequality in consumption and pollution. "World’s richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while poorest 3.5 billion account for just a tenth" Source: https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35 https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/...