6 ms·

You may be correct. However, human population will peak in the next couple of decades or so. Combine that with modest future technological advancements and we m

You may be correct. However, human population will peak in the next couple of decades or so. Combine that with modest future technological advancements and we may easily reach an equilibrium. And even if not, absent humans ever existing, the destruction of all life on earth is still a statistical certainty due to the fragility of earth. So, thinking long term again, we're the only shot life as we know it has at outliving this place. We may destroy earth ourselves before then, but I think the will-they-or-won't-they technological race against time will be more entertaining than if we went back to hunter-gatherer society and waited a few million years for the next asteroid to inevitably end us, no?

29athrowaway 6y ago
Death by exponential growth is one of the bad outcomes for humanity, and that's our most likely outcome right now. But when you mention this, people often reply saying that developed countries tend to grow slower. It doesn't matter. Human population will still add a few billions over the next decades, and our current population level is already unsustainable. The reason we will perish as a civilization is because of the biggest taboo ever: The philosophical foundation of the Western civilization is the Noahic Covenant, where the Judeochristian God tells man to multiply, fill the Earth and make use of every resource. If the human race is to survive, we need to forget about that, forget about filling the Earth, and forget about making use of every resource and leave nature undisturbed whenever possible. We need to eliminate the influence of the Noahic Covenant from our culture and our economics, and base our civilization on something that actually makes sense. We will probably have to outlaw religious beliefs, economic theories and other ideas that lead to overpopulation.
- sanedigital 6y ago
  > our current population level is already unsustainable. [Citation needed]. People have been saying this since the 18th Century, and yet we continue to find ways to support our growing population. There’s enormous swathes of the Earth that remain untouched and unused—the carrying capacity of the planet is much higher than our current population level.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    You can get argumentative about what the carrying capacity of Earth is. To me, it's the point in which resources are consumed faster than they're produced or replenished. What resources? Pick any resource... fossil water, topsoil, fish, oil, etc. It's the same situation no matter what resource you pick. Plus, we have built a dependency on many non-renewable resources. By that definition, we are already beyond carrying capacity. Every population that grows exponentially will double over a period of time. The last doubling that starves everyone off has 50% of available resources left. How fast does humanity double? 1950: 2.5 billion 1986: 5.0 billion 2017: 7.5 billion 2050: 10 billion You think you have a lot of resources left, the truth is you are about to starve in a few decades. Personally, I don't have to prove you wrong. You will prove yourself wrong when in a few decades as you look for food, or become the food of another human looking for food.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > Every population that grows exponentially will double over a period of time. And ~10 billion is where humans will stop growing (at least, will stop growing exponentially/explosively). IIRC this is mentioned in this talk by Hans Rosling: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve...
      - developer93 6y ago
        Trouble is, that peak number keeps going up. I remember learning in school that it was 8 billion, now it's 10. You have to look over time, in 10 years it might 11, but yeah we're definitely going to peak any time now. An-ny time now. And even if/when we do, having more old people than young will cause a load of other problems which we don't seem to be preparing for. Most economies seem to be built (to my inexpert eye) on having more net producers (workers) than net consumers (pensioners, kids, sick people, unemployed). It needs to change.
        oblio 6y ago

29athrowaway 6y ago

Death by exponential growth is one of the bad outcomes for humanity, and that's our most likely outcome right now. But when you mention this, people often reply saying that developed countries tend to grow slower. It doesn't matter. Human population will still add a few billions over the next decades, and our current population level is already unsustainable. The reason we will perish as a civilization is because of the biggest taboo ever: The philosophical foundation of the Western civilization is the Noahic Covenant, where the Judeochristian God tells man to multiply, fill the Earth and make use of every resource. If the human race is to survive, we need to forget about that, forget about filling the Earth, and forget about making use of every resource and leave nature undisturbed whenever possible. We need to eliminate the influence of the Noahic Covenant from our culture and our economics, and base our civilization on something that actually makes sense. We will probably have to outlaw religious beliefs, economic theories and other ideas that lead to overpopulation.

sanedigital 6y ago
> our current population level is already unsustainable. [Citation needed]. People have been saying this since the 18th Century, and yet we continue to find ways to support our growing population. There’s enormous swathes of the Earth that remain untouched and unused—the carrying capacity of the planet is much higher than our current population level.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  You can get argumentative about what the carrying capacity of Earth is. To me, it's the point in which resources are consumed faster than they're produced or replenished. What resources? Pick any resource... fossil water, topsoil, fish, oil, etc. It's the same situation no matter what resource you pick. Plus, we have built a dependency on many non-renewable resources. By that definition, we are already beyond carrying capacity. Every population that grows exponentially will double over a period of time. The last doubling that starves everyone off has 50% of available resources left. How fast does humanity double? 1950: 2.5 billion 1986: 5.0 billion 2017: 7.5 billion 2050: 10 billion You think you have a lot of resources left, the truth is you are about to starve in a few decades. Personally, I don't have to prove you wrong. You will prove yourself wrong when in a few decades as you look for food, or become the food of another human looking for food.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > Every population that grows exponentially will double over a period of time. And ~10 billion is where humans will stop growing (at least, will stop growing exponentially/explosively). IIRC this is mentioned in this talk by Hans Rosling: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve...
    - developer93 6y ago
      Trouble is, that peak number keeps going up. I remember learning in school that it was 8 billion, now it's 10. You have to look over time, in 10 years it might 11, but yeah we're definitely going to peak any time now. An-ny time now. And even if/when we do, having more old people than young will cause a load of other problems which we don't seem to be preparing for. Most economies seem to be built (to my inexpert eye) on having more net producers (workers) than net consumers (pensioners, kids, sick people, unemployed). It needs to change.
      - oblio 6y ago