4 ms·

Too many people on the planet - feed these 820M hungry people and in 20 years you have 2B hungry people instead. We should provide for a better quality of life

Too many people on the planet - feed these 820M hungry people and in 20 years you have 2B hungry people instead. We should provide for a better quality of life for fewer people (in all countries), but given human nature, population control is not exactly feasible. Somewhat related - every natural population experiencing exponential growth over the long term collapses. And even drastic measures like reducing the population by half only buys you one 'doubling time' which since the 1900s for humans is a very short time... anyone seeing the population graph and thinks this is sustainable is crazy. https://cnx.org/resources/87c6cf793bb30e49f14bef6c63c51573/Figure_45_05_01.jpg https://cnx.org/resources/87c6cf793bb30e49f14bef6c63c51573/F...

lowken10 7y ago
I volunteer you for population control.
topher515 7y ago
Human global population is no longer increasing at an exponential rate.[1] It's very likely that by ~2060 human fertility rate will drop below "replacement rate" (2.1 children per woman), thus beginning a long, slow decline in population.[2] [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/900 https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9... [2] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/900 https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/...
- anvandare 7y ago
  At this point I think that hardly matters anymore, the damage is done, there are already too many people. Even if population growth were to drop to < 0 (below replacement) today, this planet can simply not sustain 7.4 billion humans at their current consumption rate. Even less so as that rate is still increasing (as more and more people attain Western standards of living). A trillion ants aren't as impactful as a billion humans are. impact = population * consumption One way or another, our impact is going to go down.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
benj111 7y ago
"every natural population experiencing exponential growth over the long term collapses. And even drastic measures like reducing the population by half only buys you one 'doubling time'" But if you halve the population, you aren't experiencing exponential growth. Are we even experiencing exponential growth now, I thought we had passed peak child? Plus people have been making claims that we cant feed X billion people for the last 70 years, is there any particular reason why your prediction will be correct, where all others weren't?
remcob 7y ago
This is a rude misconception. Family size is mostly related to child mortality rates. In better off places the population growth is neutral or negative and evidence suggests this is causal, so better circumstance lead to _less_ growth, not more. (Source: Hans Rosling's Factfullness)
- jbob2000 7y ago
  The question then is, can we lift enough people out of poverty before they reproduce themselves (and us) into extinction?
  - remcob 7y ago
    As others have explained in this thread: Yes, easily, the projection is that population will top off soon and start declining. It is unlikely (frankly ridiculous) that we will go extinct in the next few decades because of overpopulation. Also, be careful with the we/them separation. 'They' will lift themselves out of poverty, just like 'we' did.
  - gumbo 7y ago
    This... the them and us dichotomy is really telling. There are different lenses through which to view the world: a collaborative one. Someone could also say something similar with regard to pollution, where it’s not the poor countries that are posing today an extension threat to the world.
  - hackeraccount 7y ago
    The idea that poverty is harder on the environment then wealth is one that people are having a hard time wrapping their minds around. I think it plays against the idea that we should be punished for success and rewarded for frugality. The idea that you can just pay money to get out of environmental problems strikes everyone as unfair. I think that's a fair description of how the world really works though.
    - yesbabyyes 7y ago
      I think you have a sadly distorted view of the world. How do you believe that money paid affects your surroundings, really?
d4nt 7y ago
“We should provide for...” is a little troubling. Who is “we”, how did they get to that position and how are they enforcing they’re decisions on who can have food?
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  Usually "we" means "the rich". And "the rich" usually means "everyone having more money than I do".
Ballas 7y ago
Should we feed the fat to the hungry? Or have them fight it out in an arena? Like a Colosseum. That way we can make a killing broadcasting it.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Beware - levity-free area!
  - Ballas 7y ago
    Thanks, I noticed that!
raxxorrax 7y ago
I think we wouldn't have problem to double or tripple our food production. The capabilities are available. It is more of a distribution problem. This is why I think a lot of the GM-discussion to solve hunger is a total scam. GM food should bring french fry beans and cream puff trees, nothing else. Of course there are many ressources that would decline. You are completely correct with that. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/ (I don't think the data from this org is correct, but it still shows an undeniable trend)
perfunctory 7y ago
> but given human nature, population control is not exactly feasible. Where did you get that from? Some countries have been quite successful implementing family planning policies. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Bangladesh

lowken10 7y ago

I volunteer you for population control.

topher515 7y ago

Human global population is no longer increasing at an exponential rate.[1] It's very likely that by ~2060 human fertility rate will drop below "replacement rate" (2.1 children per woman), thus beginning a long, slow decline in population.[2] [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/900 https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9... [2] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/900 https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/TOT/...

anvandare 7y ago
At this point I think that hardly matters anymore, the damage is done, there are already too many people. Even if population growth were to drop to < 0 (below replacement) today, this planet can simply not sustain 7.4 billion humans at their current consumption rate. Even less so as that rate is still increasing (as more and more people attain Western standards of living). A trillion ants aren't as impactful as a billion humans are. impact = population * consumption One way or another, our impact is going to go down.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

benj111 7y ago

"every natural population experiencing exponential growth over the long term collapses. And even drastic measures like reducing the population by half only buys you one 'doubling time'" But if you halve the population, you aren't experiencing exponential growth. Are we even experiencing exponential growth now, I thought we had passed peak child? Plus people have been making claims that we cant feed X billion people for the last 70 years, is there any particular reason why your prediction will be correct, where all others weren't?

remcob 7y ago

This is a rude misconception. Family size is mostly related to child mortality rates. In better off places the population growth is neutral or negative and evidence suggests this is causal, so better circumstance lead to _less_ growth, not more. (Source: Hans Rosling's Factfullness)

jbob2000 7y ago
The question then is, can we lift enough people out of poverty before they reproduce themselves (and us) into extinction?
- remcob 7y ago
  As others have explained in this thread: Yes, easily, the projection is that population will top off soon and start declining. It is unlikely (frankly ridiculous) that we will go extinct in the next few decades because of overpopulation. Also, be careful with the we/them separation. 'They' will lift themselves out of poverty, just like 'we' did.
- gumbo 7y ago
  This... the them and us dichotomy is really telling. There are different lenses through which to view the world: a collaborative one. Someone could also say something similar with regard to pollution, where it’s not the poor countries that are posing today an extension threat to the world.
- hackeraccount 7y ago
  The idea that poverty is harder on the environment then wealth is one that people are having a hard time wrapping their minds around. I think it plays against the idea that we should be punished for success and rewarded for frugality. The idea that you can just pay money to get out of environmental problems strikes everyone as unfair. I think that's a fair description of how the world really works though.
  - yesbabyyes 7y ago
    I think you have a sadly distorted view of the world. How do you believe that money paid affects your surroundings, really?

d4nt 7y ago

“We should provide for...” is a little troubling. Who is “we”, how did they get to that position and how are they enforcing they’re decisions on who can have food?

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Usually "we" means "the rich". And "the rich" usually means "everyone having more money than I do".

Ballas 7y ago

Should we feed the fat to the hungry? Or have them fight it out in an arena? Like a Colosseum. That way we can make a killing broadcasting it.

vixen99 7y ago
Beware - levity-free area!
- Ballas 7y ago
  Thanks, I noticed that!

raxxorrax 7y ago

I think we wouldn't have problem to double or tripple our food production. The capabilities are available. It is more of a distribution problem. This is why I think a lot of the GM-discussion to solve hunger is a total scam. GM food should bring french fry beans and cream puff trees, nothing else. Of course there are many ressources that would decline. You are completely correct with that. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/ (I don't think the data from this org is correct, but it still shows an undeniable trend)

perfunctory 7y ago

> but given human nature, population control is not exactly feasible. Where did you get that from? Some countries have been quite successful implementing family planning policies. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Bangladesh