3 ms·

No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is

by chopin 7y ago

No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. For our current technology, population is way too high. So either we regulate that or nature will do it for us. I have two children and I am grateful for them. But it would be dangerous to miss that we run up to hard limits.

rlonn 7y ago
We don't know what the future carrying capacity of earth will be, and wild speculation there helps noone. We do know current carrying capacity appears to be too low but what is the best way to fix that? Is it telling the people who have many kids today - primarily the poor and uneducated - to have fewer kids? Is that likely to work? I believe Hans Rosling is right, who said birth rates are a direct consequence of how rich or poor you are. We've seen hundreds of millions lifted from poverty in the last few decades, with dropping birth rates as a result. The best action has to be to work to lift more out of poverty. Sitting in our ivory tower and declaring that people should have fewer kids is not going to work.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Yeah, if you start declaring that not everybody can have kids, then you‘re in the business of picking who gets to have kids, which would be extremely draconian to impose and enforce and could be done badly in all sorts of ways.
arvinsim 7y ago
> So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. Ok, I agree that this is still up for discussion. > For our current technology, population is way too high. Uhh, you just said that is up for debate.
- chopin 7y ago
  >Uhh, you just said that is up for debate. Back of the napkin: following Wikipedia world energy consumption is roughly 1/10,000 of the yearly radiation input by the sun. This means about 450,000 km² of area for harvesting if we assume roughly 10% efficiency. This larger than the size of Germany. I don't think this is realistic in the short term. For keeping population only stable at current levels by providing everyone the lifestyle let's say of Europe we would need much more energy than that. For our current technology population is too high in my opinion. I cannot provide a solution but if we strive for providing everyone Europe's life style, nature will show us another way of reducing population, I fear.
undersuit 7y ago
> No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. The Puppeteer Homeworld in Larry Niven's Known Space is so largely populated they have to cool the planet down due to the passive energy output by the inhabitants. That always struck me as a pretty unrealistic barrier to beat. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1517/puppeteers-homeworld-heat-a-major-problem https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1517/puppeteers-ho...
bart_spoon 7y ago
> So either we regulate that or nature will do it for us. Then let nature do it for us. There is so much uncertainty surrounding the question that no one can say what the "population limit" is. We could have already passed it. It could be far larger than what people might think. And there really isn't any reliable way of determining which is more likely. So it would be a terrible idea to use this asa basis for creating population control measures, which at worst would be draconic, and at best could have potentially dangerous or unforseen consequences (like they did in China). We should absolutely seek solutions to ensure the future health of our planet and humanity. But we also need to realize that some "solutions" aren't actual solutions and are well beyond what we can and should do.

by chopin 7y ago

rlonn 7y ago

We don't know what the future carrying capacity of earth will be, and wild speculation there helps noone. We do know current carrying capacity appears to be too low but what is the best way to fix that? Is it telling the people who have many kids today - primarily the poor and uneducated - to have fewer kids? Is that likely to work? I believe Hans Rosling is right, who said birth rates are a direct consequence of how rich or poor you are. We've seen hundreds of millions lifted from poverty in the last few decades, with dropping birth rates as a result. The best action has to be to work to lift more out of poverty. Sitting in our ivory tower and declaring that people should have fewer kids is not going to work.

bobthepanda 7y ago
Yeah, if you start declaring that not everybody can have kids, then you‘re in the business of picking who gets to have kids, which would be extremely draconian to impose and enforce and could be done badly in all sorts of ways.

arvinsim 7y ago

> So the the discussion can only be what the correct number is, isn't it? And it could well be that the number is lower than the current population. Ok, I agree that this is still up for discussion. > For our current technology, population is way too high. Uhh, you just said that is up for debate.

chopin 7y ago
>Uhh, you just said that is up for debate. Back of the napkin: following Wikipedia world energy consumption is roughly 1/10,000 of the yearly radiation input by the sun. This means about 450,000 km² of area for harvesting if we assume roughly 10% efficiency. This larger than the size of Germany. I don't think this is realistic in the short term. For keeping population only stable at current levels by providing everyone the lifestyle let's say of Europe we would need much more energy than that. For our current technology population is too high in my opinion. I cannot provide a solution but if we strive for providing everyone Europe's life style, nature will show us another way of reducing population, I fear.

undersuit 7y ago

> No matter what technology, there will be an absolute upper limit of what population earth can bear. The Puppeteer Homeworld in Larry Niven's Known Space is so largely populated they have to cool the planet down due to the passive energy output by the inhabitants. That always struck me as a pretty unrealistic barrier to beat. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1517/puppeteers-homeworld-heat-a-major-problem https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1517/puppeteers-ho...

bart_spoon 7y ago

> So either we regulate that or nature will do it for us. Then let nature do it for us. There is so much uncertainty surrounding the question that no one can say what the "population limit" is. We could have already passed it. It could be far larger than what people might think. And there really isn't any reliable way of determining which is more likely. So it would be a terrible idea to use this asa basis for creating population control measures, which at worst would be draconic, and at best could have potentially dangerous or unforseen consequences (like they did in China). We should absolutely seek solutions to ensure the future health of our planet and humanity. But we also need to realize that some "solutions" aren't actual solutions and are well beyond what we can and should do.