8 ms·

Overpopulation

by point78 8y ago

Overpopulation

village-idiot 8y ago
No, global warming.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  one has a strong effect on the other.
  - crispinb 8y ago
    Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. Reducing global population may happen, but it would take multiple generations, so is hardly relevant to short-medium term climate change policy. Reducing emissions however is practicable over the timespans relevant to climate change. Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest".
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest". Not necessarily. Both overpopulation and climate change are problems. Even folks who don't drive CO2-spewing SUVs understand that. (I 'drive' a bicycle while spewing CO2 out my mouth, so there.)
      - crispinb 8y ago
        Well, yes, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. "Usually" implies "not necessarily". It's trivially true that population is part of the equation. But it's pragmatically irrelevant to short-medium term policy when we know we are in a state of critical global emergency, with natural systems collapsing apace. Policy needs to address that right now. I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I'm not sure what else that leaves as their motivation other than misdirection.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        I see, and agree.
        crispinb 8y ago
        Cool. To clarify: of course we'll need to find some way to keep a check on human population. But it's a generational policy issue which we won't remotely have the global social/political stability to address if we don't substantially curb CO2 emissions in the next few decades.
        starbeast 8y ago
        >I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I share a house with two who claim to be. They do shut up about it when I suggest that they go first however.
        NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        If we don't start to address it the cull will come "naturally" via starvation, war, migration and so on. No need to propose a human cull. Simply make large families something socially unacceptable and promote via campaigns and the tax system. It could easily change as extensively and rapidly as single earner family with stay at home mothers have. It has to be part of any rational solution.
        mac01021 8y ago
        How does the cull come via migration?
        NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Forced migration will come to affect millions if climate change is not constrained as homelands are lost to sea or become uninhabitable. So there will be large numbers attempting to migrate over land or sea without certain destination. There'll be dying en route, and presumably will eventually be forcibly rebuffed at borders when numbers get large enough. Aid agencies will likely be far beyond ability to cope. We've seen this in far smaller numbers with those attempting to cross the Med etc in unseaworthy overloaded boats, and the associated deaths. Of course there's also likely to be disease and starvation in any ad hoc refugee camps that arise.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. And it's not the one you think. Starting a global nuclear war is easier than coordinating the world to fight climate change.
      - crispinb 8y ago
        I think you're confusing policy & politics. Start with policy. Ignoring the human-cull-with-nukes snark, there is no population policy that is relevant to the timescale at which climate breakdown needs to be tackled. Population policy falls at the first hurdle so you never get to the politics. There are plenty of policies that could stem the rise in global emissions, so we move on to the politics. There I agree with you. There isn't a plausible political route to the global policies we need. My view of the future is that ecosystems will collapse, and, probably in the second half of this century, 'civilisation' (huh) will crumble as mutiple successive wars over declining resources and forced population movements sweep the globe.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Fair enough. I read "policy" as encompassing both proposals and implementation. Otherwise, I agree with you. Barring killing people who live now, any attempt now at reducing population will start having meaningful impact decades from now (kids use less energy than adults). We need solutions that deliver impact on much shorter timeframes.
      - seszett 8y ago
        What makes you say that? Multiple wars have taken place in the 60 years or so since global nuclear war has become possible. Most of those wars have involved at least one, sometimes several of the great nuclear powers, including as (somewhat indirect) opponents. Nuclear war doesn't seem to break out that easily.
        crispinb 8y ago
        He's making the point that the politics of a human cull are feasible (ie. a nation with nukes can decide to unilaterally launch), whereas those of emission reduction are intractable (ie. requiring a serious global agreement).
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    CO2 emission is highly uneven per capita across the globe. Americans are more than capable of producing way more CO2, even if population remains flat.
  - nl 8y ago
    This is one of those things which sounds "obviously true" and but doesn't seem to be backup up by data. There are plenty of high-population countries with low carbon emissions (eg Nigeria, Pakistan). There are plenty of low population countries with high carbon emissions (eg Australia, UAE). There are rich countries with high carbon emissions (USA, UAE, Australia) and rich countries with low absolute emissions (Switzerland) or in per capita terms (Germany). There are poorer countries with high emissions (Kazakhstan) and low emissions (Vietnam) It's almost like what people do matters as much as how many there are!
    - acqq 8y ago
      Such data can't be observed independently. The person's carbon footprint can be orders of magnitude higher when the complete extent of his activity is considered. E.g. if the products used by citizens of the country X are produced in the country Y, you can't say that the citizens of the country X have low carbon footprint even if it's not directly visible in the single data item (e.g. which measures what's only produced in X). In short, the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom."
      - nl 8y ago
        I agree it's extremely complicated. Even the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom." statement isn't super accurate, because US emissions are primarily domestic (while Chinese are much more mixed). Either way, it's inaccurate to try to simplify it to "overpopulation" or even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions.
        acqq 8y ago
        > it's inaccurate ... even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions I agree only if the data about the countries are observed independently. That is, if somebody says "the country X is so and so because overpopulation." But once we speak about the world: Once one accepts that there's only one planet and the humans on it, it's much more obvious: the critics are always ready to say that the humans as the whole starve less as we reached this number of billions. But the analysis of how it was possible gives a simple answer: we have pushed the previous limits by simply using more resources and more energy. Both of which are much more limited than a lot of humans are willing to know: the heavier elements (and even as light as helium) are produced in the stars, so once we don't have enough available on the earth's crust, we'll have big problems. The arable land is also limited, we're already mostly using everything usable, and pushing the limits there affects everything else. Finally, we managed to use half of easily reachable oil, only to discover a new way to exact it, giving us approximately a few times more than before. But by burning the hydrocarbons we're making very big problems for everything on the planet, including us. Look at these graphs, soon you will not be able, thanks to the administration which doesn't like such details to be even read about: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html especially "Global Per Capita Carbon Emission Estimates." Note that in the same time period the number of capita of the world steadily increases. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-2050-6_fig1_321996838 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-20... At 2000 we were at 6 billion. Now we're at 7.7 billion. We do continuously use at least the same energy per every human on the planet, not less (in fact we used mostly always more and more). And given that a lot of people in the "second and third world" produce the stuff for the people in the first, the "first world" just enjoys the benefits of the cheap labor and new consumers being steadily born in new quantities and the use of more energy for everything, but all at the cost of... the whole future. So yes, in such a context overpopulation of the planet is one of the topics that are so inconvenient that most are not even ready to think about it.
  - smcl 8y ago
    I think the main things are that "overpopulation" is often used as a racist dogwhistle and that it allows many people to avoid confronting their own environmental impact
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      I literally had my sibling say that solving global warming is just about stopping Africans from having so many kids. Ummm, no. You need to stop commuting with full sized SUVs and living in a 4,000sqft home.

Overpopulation

village-idiot 8y ago

No, global warming.

gameswithgo 8y ago
one has a strong effect on the other.
- crispinb 8y ago
  Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. Reducing global population may happen, but it would take multiple generations, so is hardly relevant to short-medium term climate change policy. Reducing emissions however is practicable over the timespans relevant to climate change. Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest".
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest". Not necessarily. Both overpopulation and climate change are problems. Even folks who don't drive CO2-spewing SUVs understand that. (I 'drive' a bicycle while spewing CO2 out my mouth, so there.)
    - crispinb 8y ago
      Well, yes, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. "Usually" implies "not necessarily". It's trivially true that population is part of the equation. But it's pragmatically irrelevant to short-medium term policy when we know we are in a state of critical global emergency, with natural systems collapsing apace. Policy needs to address that right now. I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I'm not sure what else that leaves as their motivation other than misdirection.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        I see, and agree.
        crispinb 8y ago
        Cool. To clarify: of course we'll need to find some way to keep a check on human population. But it's a generational policy issue which we won't remotely have the global social/political stability to address if we don't substantially curb CO2 emissions in the next few decades.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        >I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I share a house with two who claim to be. They do shut up about it when I suggest that they go first however.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        If we don't start to address it the cull will come "naturally" via starvation, war, migration and so on. No need to propose a human cull. Simply make large families something socially unacceptable and promote via campaigns and the tax system. It could easily change as extensively and rapidly as single earner family with stay at home mothers have. It has to be part of any rational solution.
        mac01021 8y ago
        How does the cull come via migration?
        NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Forced migration will come to affect millions if climate change is not constrained as homelands are lost to sea or become uninhabitable. So there will be large numbers attempting to migrate over land or sea without certain destination. There'll be dying en route, and presumably will eventually be forcibly rebuffed at borders when numbers get large enough. Aid agencies will likely be far beyond ability to cope. We've seen this in far smaller numbers with those attempting to cross the Med etc in unseaworthy overloaded boats, and the associated deaths. Of course there's also likely to be disease and starvation in any ad hoc refugee camps that arise.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. And it's not the one you think. Starting a global nuclear war is easier than coordinating the world to fight climate change.
    - crispinb 8y ago
      I think you're confusing policy & politics. Start with policy. Ignoring the human-cull-with-nukes snark, there is no population policy that is relevant to the timescale at which climate breakdown needs to be tackled. Population policy falls at the first hurdle so you never get to the politics. There are plenty of policies that could stem the rise in global emissions, so we move on to the politics. There I agree with you. There isn't a plausible political route to the global policies we need. My view of the future is that ecosystems will collapse, and, probably in the second half of this century, 'civilisation' (huh) will crumble as mutiple successive wars over declining resources and forced population movements sweep the globe.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Fair enough. I read "policy" as encompassing both proposals and implementation. Otherwise, I agree with you. Barring killing people who live now, any attempt now at reducing population will start having meaningful impact decades from now (kids use less energy than adults). We need solutions that deliver impact on much shorter timeframes.
    - seszett 8y ago
      What makes you say that? Multiple wars have taken place in the 60 years or so since global nuclear war has become possible. Most of those wars have involved at least one, sometimes several of the great nuclear powers, including as (somewhat indirect) opponents. Nuclear war doesn't seem to break out that easily.
      - crispinb 8y ago
        He's making the point that the politics of a human cull are feasible (ie. a nation with nukes can decide to unilaterally launch), whereas those of emission reduction are intractable (ie. requiring a serious global agreement).
- village-idiot 8y ago
  CO2 emission is highly uneven per capita across the globe. Americans are more than capable of producing way more CO2, even if population remains flat.
- nl 8y ago
  This is one of those things which sounds "obviously true" and but doesn't seem to be backup up by data. There are plenty of high-population countries with low carbon emissions (eg Nigeria, Pakistan). There are plenty of low population countries with high carbon emissions (eg Australia, UAE). There are rich countries with high carbon emissions (USA, UAE, Australia) and rich countries with low absolute emissions (Switzerland) or in per capita terms (Germany). There are poorer countries with high emissions (Kazakhstan) and low emissions (Vietnam) It's almost like what people do matters as much as how many there are!
  - acqq 8y ago
    Such data can't be observed independently. The person's carbon footprint can be orders of magnitude higher when the complete extent of his activity is considered. E.g. if the products used by citizens of the country X are produced in the country Y, you can't say that the citizens of the country X have low carbon footprint even if it's not directly visible in the single data item (e.g. which measures what's only produced in X). In short, the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom."
    - nl 8y ago
      I agree it's extremely complicated. Even the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom." statement isn't super accurate, because US emissions are primarily domestic (while Chinese are much more mixed). Either way, it's inaccurate to try to simplify it to "overpopulation" or even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions.
      - acqq 8y ago
        > it's inaccurate ... even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions I agree only if the data about the countries are observed independently. That is, if somebody says "the country X is so and so because overpopulation." But once we speak about the world: Once one accepts that there's only one planet and the humans on it, it's much more obvious: the critics are always ready to say that the humans as the whole starve less as we reached this number of billions. But the analysis of how it was possible gives a simple answer: we have pushed the previous limits by simply using more resources and more energy. Both of which are much more limited than a lot of humans are willing to know: the heavier elements (and even as light as helium) are produced in the stars, so once we don't have enough available on the earth's crust, we'll have big problems. The arable land is also limited, we're already mostly using everything usable, and pushing the limits there affects everything else. Finally, we managed to use half of easily reachable oil, only to discover a new way to exact it, giving us approximately a few times more than before. But by burning the hydrocarbons we're making very big problems for everything on the planet, including us. Look at these graphs, soon you will not be able, thanks to the administration which doesn't like such details to be even read about: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html especially "Global Per Capita Carbon Emission Estimates." Note that in the same time period the number of capita of the world steadily increases. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-2050-6_fig1_321996838 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-20... At 2000 we were at 6 billion. Now we're at 7.7 billion. We do continuously use at least the same energy per every human on the planet, not less (in fact we used mostly always more and more). And given that a lot of people in the "second and third world" produce the stuff for the people in the first, the "first world" just enjoys the benefits of the cheap labor and new consumers being steadily born in new quantities and the use of more energy for everything, but all at the cost of... the whole future. So yes, in such a context overpopulation of the planet is one of the topics that are so inconvenient that most are not even ready to think about it.
- smcl 8y ago
  I think the main things are that "overpopulation" is often used as a racist dogwhistle and that it allows many people to avoid confronting their own environmental impact
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I literally had my sibling say that solving global warming is just about stopping Africans from having so many kids. Ummm, no. You need to stop commuting with full sized SUVs and living in a 4,000sqft home.