5 ms·

I'm not sure if it's reasonable, but I'm starting to think that the amount of people that are currently inhabiting earth is just not sustainable. We are inhabit

I'm not sure if it's reasonable, but I'm starting to think that the amount of people that are currently inhabiting earth is just not sustainable. We are inhabiting many places that high risk for the people living there (fault lines, hurricane paths), we're exhausting resources and causing plants and animals to go extinct. And, according to this article, we're also exhausting groundwater reserves. Meanwhile, projections show that probably another couple billion people will be added in the next three decades. There's strong resistance against any proposals to cut back emissions, especially if it means giving up some of the luxury we're used to (flights, meat, cars, large houses, etcetera). I might have a bleak perspective of the current state of affairs, but I'm really not seeing any feasible short term solutions, that can actually get people on board. Naming possible solutions is easy, but getting everyone to agree seems downright impossible for the foreseeable future. And I fear that we won't change a thing before it's too late.

dmitriid 7y ago
I think he number is sustainable. However, we are overproducing, and we are ineffective in distributing food and goods. And most of that ineffectiveness comes down to politics.
snarf21 7y ago
I agree. I don't think the earth can support more than about 4B or so people. Our aquifers are drying up and they can take centuries to refill. Or they compress and will never fill again (but maybe new ones will instead). We have no real chance of changing human behavior so it seems like we just need less humans. I'm not suggesting laws but you can remove tax breaks for kids after the second. Have all you want, you just don't get the breaks. I think the earth is about to strike back and show us who is boss. Clean water, food monoculture, and antibiotics overuse are going to come home to roost and we'll quickly learn what a sustainable population is.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The long-term historical trend was far closer to 50-100m. There are very few historical large wild mammal populations remotely close to this. And historical, because we've reduced wild terrestrial vertebrate biomass by about 90% over the past 100-1000 years. There are about a half-million wild zebra, and maybe 12 million white-tail deer. The largest seal populations are estimated at about 8 million -- roughly the number of people in New York City. We're probably outnumbered by brown rates, roughly 11 billion. Even of domesticated cattle and pigs, totals are on the order of about a billion. The passenger pidgeon, two centuries ago, numbered 3-5 billion individuals. Today there are none. For most large terrestrial mammals, populations are in the 5,000 - 50,000 range. That's the population of a small to mid-sized town. For an entire species. Update: an Imgur photo gallery consisting of images with as many pixels per image as there are individuals in the population: https://imgur.com/gallery/9v4HV2p https://imgur.com/gallery/9v4HV2p
wbl 7y ago
Desalination is used extensively by Israel.
- dajohnson89 7y ago
  why isnt it used more widely? because it's cheaper to just suck water out of the ground?
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Pretty much. It's expensive on a like for like basis but not in an absolute sense. I think my water costs me about £16 per month for 3 of us (me, partner and step-son), if that doubled I wouldn't even notice it set against our other outgoings, We are just very used to very cheap clean water in developed countries (and also very used to wasting vast amounts of it). Israel doesn't just desalinate a lot of their water but they are masters are conserving it's use (they are so good at drip-agriculture that their experts are showing other countries experts how to scale it up) of course drip-agriculture has it's own issues.
    - wott 7y ago
      > I think my water costs me about £16 per month for 3 of us (me, partner and step-son), if that doubled I wouldn't even notice it set against our other outgoings, For the same kind of household, our yearly bill went from €115 to €415 in less than 10 years; I guarantee you start feeling it. It doubled in 3 years, tripled in 6 years. I have no idea why, we are in a place where water is normally abundant (and there is zero irrigation). It is not like we could reduce our consumption: we use only a tiny bit more than 7 m³ per month, for a house with garden. That means just 2.3 m³ per month per person. It is really not an American type of water consumption! Probably only a 3rd or even a quarter of it...
      - o-__-o 7y ago
        Could be a meter mixup

dmitriid 7y ago

I think he number is sustainable. However, we are overproducing, and we are ineffective in distributing food and goods. And most of that ineffectiveness comes down to politics.

snarf21 7y ago

I agree. I don't think the earth can support more than about 4B or so people. Our aquifers are drying up and they can take centuries to refill. Or they compress and will never fill again (but maybe new ones will instead). We have no real chance of changing human behavior so it seems like we just need less humans. I'm not suggesting laws but you can remove tax breaks for kids after the second. Have all you want, you just don't get the breaks. I think the earth is about to strike back and show us who is boss. Clean water, food monoculture, and antibiotics overuse are going to come home to roost and we'll quickly learn what a sustainable population is.

dredmorbius 7y ago
The long-term historical trend was far closer to 50-100m. There are very few historical large wild mammal populations remotely close to this. And historical, because we've reduced wild terrestrial vertebrate biomass by about 90% over the past 100-1000 years. There are about a half-million wild zebra, and maybe 12 million white-tail deer. The largest seal populations are estimated at about 8 million -- roughly the number of people in New York City. We're probably outnumbered by brown rates, roughly 11 billion. Even of domesticated cattle and pigs, totals are on the order of about a billion. The passenger pidgeon, two centuries ago, numbered 3-5 billion individuals. Today there are none. For most large terrestrial mammals, populations are in the 5,000 - 50,000 range. That's the population of a small to mid-sized town. For an entire species. Update: an Imgur photo gallery consisting of images with as many pixels per image as there are individuals in the population: https://imgur.com/gallery/9v4HV2p https://imgur.com/gallery/9v4HV2p

wbl 7y ago

Desalination is used extensively by Israel.

dajohnson89 7y ago
why isnt it used more widely? because it's cheaper to just suck water out of the ground?
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Pretty much. It's expensive on a like for like basis but not in an absolute sense. I think my water costs me about £16 per month for 3 of us (me, partner and step-son), if that doubled I wouldn't even notice it set against our other outgoings, We are just very used to very cheap clean water in developed countries (and also very used to wasting vast amounts of it). Israel doesn't just desalinate a lot of their water but they are masters are conserving it's use (they are so good at drip-agriculture that their experts are showing other countries experts how to scale it up) of course drip-agriculture has it's own issues.
  - wott 7y ago
    > I think my water costs me about £16 per month for 3 of us (me, partner and step-son), if that doubled I wouldn't even notice it set against our other outgoings, For the same kind of household, our yearly bill went from €115 to €415 in less than 10 years; I guarantee you start feeling it. It doubled in 3 years, tripled in 6 years. I have no idea why, we are in a place where water is normally abundant (and there is zero irrigation). It is not like we could reduce our consumption: we use only a tiny bit more than 7 m³ per month, for a house with garden. That means just 2.3 m³ per month per person. It is really not an American type of water consumption! Probably only a 3rd or even a quarter of it...
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      Could be a meter mixup