5 ms·

You had me until 'facing...overpopulation'. To boot, Elon Musk has talked about this [1]. We are not facing overpopulation. Population is contracting currently

You had me until 'facing...overpopulation'. To boot, Elon Musk has talked about this [1]. We are not facing overpopulation. Population is contracting currently and will continue for at least a few decades. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_4VnXHF64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_4VnXHF64

vidarh 6y ago
Worldwide population is still projected to grow for many decades. Birthrates are dropping.
snarf21 6y ago
Respectfully, I'd argue we are already overpopulated. The contraction will take a while to really take hold. Eventually we will no longer be overpopulated. I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. But it will take quite a long time for us to fall that far and it will come with other issues. Additionally, it will take far longer for the oceans and atmosphere to recover but it eventually will. I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. Of course Earth can sustainably support way more people than that. The problem is waste. The US alone loses 30-40% of the food it produces, worldwide it's something to ~1/3rd.
  - bserge 6y ago
    Centralized food and energy production (and other things tbh, but these two stand out) is certainly a lot cheaper, but it's obvious it was not the right move. If everyone had to maintain their local food/energy production at the county, neighbourhood or even household level, there would be much less waste and more responsibility (something a lot of people need). Fewer out of season products means less waste and pollution, as well.
  - snarf21 6y ago
    I think we've shown what a greedy species we are. I don't know what we can expect people to live a smaller life and consume less voluntarily. In my opinion, given our track record, that is why I suggested a lower total as a max. Maybe one day we'll be able to create energy and food locally that is carbon neutral and then we could handle more population but that doesn't seem possible now or anytime soon.
- grecy 6y ago
  > I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars. Elon's goal isn't to do better on Mars. It's to have Mars as a backup of humans in case something happens to Earth (for example - big meteor). As we sit now if we lose Earth, humans are finished. If we had a colony on Mars, at least humans as a species would continue.
willvarfar 6y ago
“Over”-population depends upon your definition and judgement on the planets ability to sustain us etc. But population declining? Nope! Here’s a great and accessible explanation: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
dougmwne 6y ago
The growth rate is slowing, but population will continue to expand till we add several more billion people. With our current population, there are many resources we are using unsustainably: soil, fresh water, seafood, raw materials, fuel, and carbon sinks. Any one of these things could cause extreme disruptions if a country or region's access is cut off or reduced. I think it's common to think of these kinds of warnings as alarmist. Compare this with the denialism and impact of COVID. At first it seems remote and impossible, as if life will certainly continue on like it always has, then suddenly every school in the world closes down and all borders are shut. If a bit of RNA can change the world so, imagine extreme regional food shortages.
- 7373737373 6y ago
  I'm not convinced any of these things will be caused by demand shocks and material scarcity due to overpopulation, but rather, if at all, through coordination and resource allocation failures (politics, war, corruption).
  - dougmwne 6y ago
    My information on this topic comes from classes, books, scientific papers, and 8 years working in the environmental protection sector. There is a decades-old and growing scientific consensus that we have a multi-dimensional sustainability crisis incoming. And political factors are absolutely a part of this since shortages will happen regionally first and geopolitics will ensure that nations will act in self-interest. Things like the US-MX border wall and Brexit are arguably early impacts of climate change since it can be viewed as a strategic attempt to separate from areas likely to see large numbers of climate refugees in coming decades.
    - 7373737373 6y ago
      Causality and motivation are complex issues, so I'd like to read a well founded elaboration of your last statement. Did long-term strategic considerations of these bureaucracies truly lead to such foresighted, high-level decisions by governments and the public? If so, climate change might have been only an aspect of this.

vidarh 6y ago

Worldwide population is still projected to grow for many decades. Birthrates are dropping.

snarf21 6y ago

Respectfully, I'd argue we are already overpopulated. The contraction will take a while to really take hold. Eventually we will no longer be overpopulated. I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. But it will take quite a long time for us to fall that far and it will come with other issues. Additionally, it will take far longer for the oceans and atmosphere to recover but it eventually will. I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars.

mschuster91 6y ago
> I just don't think the Earth can sustainably support more than 2 billion people. Of course Earth can sustainably support way more people than that. The problem is waste. The US alone loses 30-40% of the food it produces, worldwide it's something to ~1/3rd.
- bserge 6y ago
  Centralized food and energy production (and other things tbh, but these two stand out) is certainly a lot cheaper, but it's obvious it was not the right move. If everyone had to maintain their local food/energy production at the county, neighbourhood or even household level, there would be much less waste and more responsibility (something a lot of people need). Fewer out of season products means less waste and pollution, as well.
- snarf21 6y ago
  I think we've shown what a greedy species we are. I don't know what we can expect people to live a smaller life and consume less voluntarily. In my opinion, given our track record, that is why I suggested a lower total as a max. Maybe one day we'll be able to create energy and food locally that is carbon neutral and then we could handle more population but that doesn't seem possible now or anytime soon.
grecy 6y ago
> I also don't understand how we think we'd do better on Mars than on Earth. We have near infinite resources and advantages here and we trashed it. We have none of those on Mars. Elon's goal isn't to do better on Mars. It's to have Mars as a backup of humans in case something happens to Earth (for example - big meteor). As we sit now if we lose Earth, humans are finished. If we had a colony on Mars, at least humans as a species would continue.

willvarfar 6y ago

“Over”-population depends upon your definition and judgement on the planets ability to sustain us etc. But population declining? Nope! Here’s a great and accessible explanation: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...

dougmwne 6y ago

The growth rate is slowing, but population will continue to expand till we add several more billion people. With our current population, there are many resources we are using unsustainably: soil, fresh water, seafood, raw materials, fuel, and carbon sinks. Any one of these things could cause extreme disruptions if a country or region's access is cut off or reduced. I think it's common to think of these kinds of warnings as alarmist. Compare this with the denialism and impact of COVID. At first it seems remote and impossible, as if life will certainly continue on like it always has, then suddenly every school in the world closes down and all borders are shut. If a bit of RNA can change the world so, imagine extreme regional food shortages.

7373737373 6y ago
I'm not convinced any of these things will be caused by demand shocks and material scarcity due to overpopulation, but rather, if at all, through coordination and resource allocation failures (politics, war, corruption).
- dougmwne 6y ago
  My information on this topic comes from classes, books, scientific papers, and 8 years working in the environmental protection sector. There is a decades-old and growing scientific consensus that we have a multi-dimensional sustainability crisis incoming. And political factors are absolutely a part of this since shortages will happen regionally first and geopolitics will ensure that nations will act in self-interest. Things like the US-MX border wall and Brexit are arguably early impacts of climate change since it can be viewed as a strategic attempt to separate from areas likely to see large numbers of climate refugees in coming decades.
  - 7373737373 6y ago
    Causality and motivation are complex issues, so I'd like to read a well founded elaboration of your last statement. Did long-term strategic considerations of these bureaucracies truly lead to such foresighted, high-level decisions by governments and the public? If so, climate change might have been only an aspect of this.