3 ms·

It’s neither hysteria nor something you can “move on” from. Please either provide facts or other evidence for your opinion or don’t comment. There is no basis f

It’s neither hysteria nor something you can “move on” from. Please either provide facts or other evidence for your opinion or don’t comment. There is no basis for the suggestion that we can sustain a growing population on this planet, even with technology and science continuing to progress.

thousandautumns 8y ago
What evidence is there that we can't? The issue again isn't the number of people on the planet, its the number of people combined with our current usage of planetary resources. But between the fact that the vast majority of those resources are being used by a small amount of the population, and the fact that people have been claiming the "population bomb" will be going off imminently for hundreds of years and it not actually happening, seems to imply that the issue isn't the number of people on the planet, and way in which those people use planetary resources.
- philipps 8y ago
  There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption. And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. Maybe at some point our aggregate consumption will slow, but all credible models of population growth (leveling off around 11B) and associated consumption suggest that it would be far too late.
  - _Tev 8y ago
    > There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption Yeah this gets thrown around a lot, but people clearly misunderstand what it actually means. It just means that there is _some_ amount of people we can't feed, but it says _nothing_ about what the amount is. It can be 10 billion, it can be 10^27. You just "proved" nothing of substance. > And we are currently consuming an _unsustainable_ and growing rate of resources. (emphasis mine) [citation needed] I am serious, it does not matter how many times people say this, it still is not obvious truth. > And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. And when you finally claim something that would be easy (I guess, you seem confident in it) to back up by links, you don't do that. This reads like unfounded hysteria.
    - philipps 8y ago
      The concept of carrying capacity estimates human consumption versus the planet’s ability to regenerate resources. Have a look at the reports and data cited on the Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible. Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change. The scientific consensus is that even a small increase of 1.5C will have severe consequences on the planet. Limiting the increase to 1.5 C will require significant action by all of us. Addding many more people makes this much harder. http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf I hope the links can help convince you that we are facing a serious crisis that is causally related to the size of the human population.
      - _Tev 8y ago
        Carrying capacity of Earth is frequently revised upwards, but I am not paying much attention to research around it, that is why I would appreciate some concrete links / citations. > I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible. Because I have not seen anyone argue for the limits in convincing ways, it's all FUD from my PoV. Intuitively - energy is not (very big) problem, we can make dense nuclear sources, solar & offshore wind is viable in many places, and gas peaker plants / limited enetgy storage should cover the rest. Hydroponics and similar advanced agricultural methods are showing nice gains in effectivity of produce per sq km, at the cost of (IIRC) energy (see above). EVs are finally starting to be viable. Etc. Etc. And that's before we get to really long-term solutions like colonizing space. Where are the real limits? > Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change ... Yeah, we are making a lot of externalities. This is not impossible to solve, see above. Extrapolating from our past failures is extremely shortsighted and has been proven wrong numerous times, see e.g. WW3 and end-of-humanity scare in 50's/60's. We can learn from our mistakes, and we seem to actually do that a lot! Spreading hysteria is not helping I think.

thousandautumns 8y ago

What evidence is there that we can't? The issue again isn't the number of people on the planet, its the number of people combined with our current usage of planetary resources. But between the fact that the vast majority of those resources are being used by a small amount of the population, and the fact that people have been claiming the "population bomb" will be going off imminently for hundreds of years and it not actually happening, seems to imply that the issue isn't the number of people on the planet, and way in which those people use planetary resources.

philipps 8y ago
There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption. And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. Maybe at some point our aggregate consumption will slow, but all credible models of population growth (leveling off around 11B) and associated consumption suggest that it would be far too late.
- _Tev 8y ago
  > There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption Yeah this gets thrown around a lot, but people clearly misunderstand what it actually means. It just means that there is _some_ amount of people we can't feed, but it says _nothing_ about what the amount is. It can be 10 billion, it can be 10^27. You just "proved" nothing of substance. > And we are currently consuming an _unsustainable_ and growing rate of resources. (emphasis mine) [citation needed] I am serious, it does not matter how many times people say this, it still is not obvious truth. > And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. And when you finally claim something that would be easy (I guess, you seem confident in it) to back up by links, you don't do that. This reads like unfounded hysteria.
  - philipps 8y ago
    The concept of carrying capacity estimates human consumption versus the planet’s ability to regenerate resources. Have a look at the reports and data cited on the Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible. Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change. The scientific consensus is that even a small increase of 1.5C will have severe consequences on the planet. Limiting the increase to 1.5 C will require significant action by all of us. Addding many more people makes this much harder. http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf I hope the links can help convince you that we are facing a serious crisis that is causally related to the size of the human population.
    - _Tev 8y ago
      Carrying capacity of Earth is frequently revised upwards, but I am not paying much attention to research around it, that is why I would appreciate some concrete links / citations. > I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible. Because I have not seen anyone argue for the limits in convincing ways, it's all FUD from my PoV. Intuitively - energy is not (very big) problem, we can make dense nuclear sources, solar & offshore wind is viable in many places, and gas peaker plants / limited enetgy storage should cover the rest. Hydroponics and similar advanced agricultural methods are showing nice gains in effectivity of produce per sq km, at the cost of (IIRC) energy (see above). EVs are finally starting to be viable. Etc. Etc. And that's before we get to really long-term solutions like colonizing space. Where are the real limits? > Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change ... Yeah, we are making a lot of externalities. This is not impossible to solve, see above. Extrapolating from our past failures is extremely shortsighted and has been proven wrong numerous times, see e.g. WW3 and end-of-humanity scare in 50's/60's. We can learn from our mistakes, and we seem to actually do that a lot! Spreading hysteria is not helping I think.