8 ms·

Seems like the world is getting its act together. Now if we could only get Africa to these levels, things might start looking rosy again…

kneebonian 4y ago
Sounds like you are getting dangerously close to some ideas by some other people that history has not looked kindly on.
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't post flamebait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deltree7 4y ago
The only way we go extinct is through this. Not climate change
- mc32 4y ago
  I don’t think so. Humanity would do quite well at 2MMM. We don’t really need 8 or more. I agree with Elon on some things but not on this. Certainly this means a new economic system, so there are some tough things that need working out.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  We're 8 billion people and rising, which is nowhere near to going extinct. But if we keep multiplying and consuming planetary resources and polluting it at the same rate as today, we'll definitely accelerate our extinction.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
It is a lot more complicated than just High population bad, low population good. Even if you're only looking at it from a atmospheric carbon perspective, there are very complex interactions. Even when it comes to Africa, the optimal population trajectory is unclear
- aylmao 4y ago
  Optimal for what?
  - guhidalg 4y ago
    Not destroying the world with emissions.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      If it's about lowering emissions then surely the optimal population is zero.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Essentially everything. Environment, happiness, GDP, suffering. The interactions are all complex and nonlinear.
randommar 4y ago
[dead]
freitzkriesler 4y ago
The unfortunate reality: When NGOs, the UN, and other do gooders stop providing aid to Africa, the population problem will (unfortunately) solve itself. This scenario may happen sooner rather than later if a world war breaks out or further shocks to the good supply occur.
- vidarh 4y ago
  This is not in any way supported with the evidence, which is that dropping fertility rates correlates strongly to increased development, and with the fact that fertility rates across Africa has been dropping pretty consistently for the last 3-4 decades depending on country.
  - freitzkriesler 4y ago
    Indeed true, Africa's fertility rate, while slowly dropping, is still whopping 32 births per 1000 people. Increased development helps but food aid is what supports a large number of sub Saharan Africans who are bolstering those numbers. Famine and food prices are still a strong dictator of fertility in Africa.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      The data does not in any way support that improving food safety "bolsters those numbers" if by that you mean they're keeping fertility rates up.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think this is a bad take. It assumes that Africa is at a carrying capacity and this capacity is being artificially increased by aid. Im not sure either of those is actually true.
  - freitzkriesler 4y ago
    Africa isn't at all at carrying capacity. There's more than enough arable farm land to support the current population and more. See Kenya, once the bread basket of Africa and now no longer because their leadership kicked out white farmers, gave the land to local Kenyans, and unfortunately those locals even after all these years haven't figured out how to get the yields that the old owners did. The problem comes down to the locals who are either unwilling or unable to farm effectively at yields that support the population. Then the food aid comes in which is where we're at now.
vidarh 4y ago
Africa is also seeing rapid declines across the board, just lagging a couple of decades behind. UNPF lists Niger as the highest remaining, at 6.6. But only 8 countries are still above 5. Several African countries are now below 3 (Algeria, Eswatini, Botswana, Djibouti - all the way down at 2.5), and a clear majority of African countries are below 4.5. Importantly given its size, UNICEF suggests total fertility for Nigeria might have dipped below 5 for the first time (it's one of the 8 mentioned above, as others still show it at 5.1-5.3). Notably the fertility rate of Nigeria is kept up by rural regions, and should keep dropping as urbanisation proceeds.
leesec 4y ago
In terms of replacement birth rate? The world is already heading towards some catastrophic consequences. We need more babies not less.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  Do we actually need birth replacement at our current numbers? 8,000,000,000 is a mind boggling number of humans, it's a good thing it's slowing down. The more people there is, the more conflicts for lack of resources we'll have.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think it is as simple as total population in terms of conflict. Imagine overall numbers are going down, country X is increasing, while it's neighbors are decreasing. Also imagine country Y has seen a century of improvement powered by population growth dry up. Now it is looking at stagnation and decline as the population ages. This is a recipe for social unrest.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      For starters, this paragraph springs to mind: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate." (Communist Manifesto) Whatever one thinks about Marx, the conflict between the continuation of economic growth and resistance to immigration is real. And in the face of a threat of population decline, resistance to immigration will become economic suicide, and so anti-immigrant populists and the economic elites will come to increasingly face off against each other.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        That is a fair point and it is playing out in economies across the world. The biggest examples are contrasting the US and China. Both China and the US have similar fertility rates, well below replacement. However, the US augments and stabilizes the population growth with immigration. Immigrants both add to the total, and have many more children than native born individuals. China on the other hand has net migration out of the country, and fewer immigrants to stabilize the population and rate. Because of this, China is much more vulnerable to the impacts of a population bust.
unity1001 4y ago
> Seems like the world is getting its act together No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population (a few, not dozens of multiples) with the current technology according to the statistics. The problem is the economic system that induces scarcity in order to facilitate profit mechanisms. With such a system, it wont matter if there are 300 million people or 300 billion on the planet - there will always be scarcity and ensuing problems. Food rotting in warehouses to protect the prices in commodities markets or even by its own producers, immense amounts of food being thrown away from houses and restaurants etc in the West and so on. Moreover, this 'overpopulation' rhetoric mostly came from the Western literature & press and it was always targeted at the emerging world (Asia, Africa, South America) instead of the entire world. The long-standing rhetoric called for this countries to reduce their birth rates while at the same time promoting having children in Europe through social programs etc.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics. How so? Population growth isn't free and without cost. I'm tired of these BS claims that "look, if we put everyone on the planet shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit in the space of Texas or Poland, therefore the world is not overpopulated and we can keep the population numbers growing multiple times over." The problem is not just about real estate or land. People need food and energy to survive, and as the Ruso-Ukrainian war proved it, the global food and energy supply chain is limited and very sensitive, and several developing nations are already on the brink of social collapse because of the increase in food and energy prices this war caused. How will adding billions more people in developing nations fix this or reduce the risk of this happening again? Making more food for more people also isn't free, it comes at the cost of increase in CO2, and with that, comes more global warming and more extreme weather phenomenons. These wouldn't be such big issues, if all countries on the planet worked together in peace and harmony for the common good, but that's not the case. Even in the EU we can't get members to work together on hot topics like nuclear energy, migration, China or Russia, as each member is following their own personal agenda at the expense of the others. It's even worse in global politics where every country is keeping their cards against their chest with one hand and a knife behind their back with the other. As desirable land, food and energy get scarce, each global power will try to claw as much of it as possible for themselves, leaving the smaller, less powerful countries to fend for themselves at the cost of social unrest, anarchy or even war. We need to come to terms with the fact that having modern society and economic systems be dependent on having an ever increasing population in order to function, was a poorly thought out Ponzi scheme that sounded good post-WW2, but won't scale indefinitely, and isn't sustainable long term, but instead of admitting it, we've been kicking the can down the road ever since.
ARandomerDude 4y ago
I think you're saying you want fewer Africans? Is that right?
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  Fewer people in general but given that they’re the only continent reproducing above replacement rate, yes - specifically fewer Africans.
  - kwere 4y ago
    africa is quite huge, farmland in hectares by person is "abundant". Stats about Arable land (hectares per person) in 2020 -> SubSaharian Africa : 0.19 Mena : 0.11 China : 0.08 India : 0.11 European Union : 0.22 U.S.A : 0.48 Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_desc=false https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_...

kneebonian 4y ago

Sounds like you are getting dangerously close to some ideas by some other people that history has not looked kindly on.

dang 4y ago
Please don't post flamebait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deltree7 4y ago

The only way we go extinct is through this. Not climate change

mc32 4y ago
I don’t think so. Humanity would do quite well at 2MMM. We don’t really need 8 or more. I agree with Elon on some things but not on this. Certainly this means a new economic system, so there are some tough things that need working out.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
We're 8 billion people and rising, which is nowhere near to going extinct. But if we keep multiplying and consuming planetary resources and polluting it at the same rate as today, we'll definitely accelerate our extinction.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It is a lot more complicated than just High population bad, low population good. Even if you're only looking at it from a atmospheric carbon perspective, there are very complex interactions. Even when it comes to Africa, the optimal population trajectory is unclear

aylmao 4y ago
Optimal for what?
- guhidalg 4y ago
  Not destroying the world with emissions.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    If it's about lowering emissions then surely the optimal population is zero.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Essentially everything. Environment, happiness, GDP, suffering. The interactions are all complex and nonlinear.

randommar 4y ago

[dead]

freitzkriesler 4y ago

The unfortunate reality: When NGOs, the UN, and other do gooders stop providing aid to Africa, the population problem will (unfortunately) solve itself. This scenario may happen sooner rather than later if a world war breaks out or further shocks to the good supply occur.

vidarh 4y ago
This is not in any way supported with the evidence, which is that dropping fertility rates correlates strongly to increased development, and with the fact that fertility rates across Africa has been dropping pretty consistently for the last 3-4 decades depending on country.
- freitzkriesler 4y ago
  Indeed true, Africa's fertility rate, while slowly dropping, is still whopping 32 births per 1000 people. Increased development helps but food aid is what supports a large number of sub Saharan Africans who are bolstering those numbers. Famine and food prices are still a strong dictator of fertility in Africa.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    The data does not in any way support that improving food safety "bolsters those numbers" if by that you mean they're keeping fertility rates up.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think this is a bad take. It assumes that Africa is at a carrying capacity and this capacity is being artificially increased by aid. Im not sure either of those is actually true.
- freitzkriesler 4y ago
  Africa isn't at all at carrying capacity. There's more than enough arable farm land to support the current population and more. See Kenya, once the bread basket of Africa and now no longer because their leadership kicked out white farmers, gave the land to local Kenyans, and unfortunately those locals even after all these years haven't figured out how to get the yields that the old owners did. The problem comes down to the locals who are either unwilling or unable to farm effectively at yields that support the population. Then the food aid comes in which is where we're at now.

vidarh 4y ago

Africa is also seeing rapid declines across the board, just lagging a couple of decades behind. UNPF lists Niger as the highest remaining, at 6.6. But only 8 countries are still above 5. Several African countries are now below 3 (Algeria, Eswatini, Botswana, Djibouti - all the way down at 2.5), and a clear majority of African countries are below 4.5. Importantly given its size, UNICEF suggests total fertility for Nigeria might have dipped below 5 for the first time (it's one of the 8 mentioned above, as others still show it at 5.1-5.3). Notably the fertility rate of Nigeria is kept up by rural regions, and should keep dropping as urbanisation proceeds.

leesec 4y ago

In terms of replacement birth rate? The world is already heading towards some catastrophic consequences. We need more babies not less.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
Do we actually need birth replacement at our current numbers? 8,000,000,000 is a mind boggling number of humans, it's a good thing it's slowing down. The more people there is, the more conflicts for lack of resources we'll have.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think it is as simple as total population in terms of conflict. Imagine overall numbers are going down, country X is increasing, while it's neighbors are decreasing. Also imagine country Y has seen a century of improvement powered by population growth dry up. Now it is looking at stagnation and decline as the population ages. This is a recipe for social unrest.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    For starters, this paragraph springs to mind: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate." (Communist Manifesto) Whatever one thinks about Marx, the conflict between the continuation of economic growth and resistance to immigration is real. And in the face of a threat of population decline, resistance to immigration will become economic suicide, and so anti-immigrant populists and the economic elites will come to increasingly face off against each other.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      That is a fair point and it is playing out in economies across the world. The biggest examples are contrasting the US and China. Both China and the US have similar fertility rates, well below replacement. However, the US augments and stabilizes the population growth with immigration. Immigrants both add to the total, and have many more children than native born individuals. China on the other hand has net migration out of the country, and fewer immigrants to stabilize the population and rate. Because of this, China is much more vulnerable to the impacts of a population bust.

unity1001 4y ago

> Seems like the world is getting its act together No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population (a few, not dozens of multiples) with the current technology according to the statistics. The problem is the economic system that induces scarcity in order to facilitate profit mechanisms. With such a system, it wont matter if there are 300 million people or 300 billion on the planet - there will always be scarcity and ensuing problems. Food rotting in warehouses to protect the prices in commodities markets or even by its own producers, immense amounts of food being thrown away from houses and restaurants etc in the West and so on. Moreover, this 'overpopulation' rhetoric mostly came from the Western literature & press and it was always targeted at the emerging world (Asia, Africa, South America) instead of the entire world. The long-standing rhetoric called for this countries to reduce their birth rates while at the same time promoting having children in Europe through social programs etc.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics. How so? Population growth isn't free and without cost. I'm tired of these BS claims that "look, if we put everyone on the planet shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit in the space of Texas or Poland, therefore the world is not overpopulated and we can keep the population numbers growing multiple times over." The problem is not just about real estate or land. People need food and energy to survive, and as the Ruso-Ukrainian war proved it, the global food and energy supply chain is limited and very sensitive, and several developing nations are already on the brink of social collapse because of the increase in food and energy prices this war caused. How will adding billions more people in developing nations fix this or reduce the risk of this happening again? Making more food for more people also isn't free, it comes at the cost of increase in CO2, and with that, comes more global warming and more extreme weather phenomenons. These wouldn't be such big issues, if all countries on the planet worked together in peace and harmony for the common good, but that's not the case. Even in the EU we can't get members to work together on hot topics like nuclear energy, migration, China or Russia, as each member is following their own personal agenda at the expense of the others. It's even worse in global politics where every country is keeping their cards against their chest with one hand and a knife behind their back with the other. As desirable land, food and energy get scarce, each global power will try to claw as much of it as possible for themselves, leaving the smaller, less powerful countries to fend for themselves at the cost of social unrest, anarchy or even war. We need to come to terms with the fact that having modern society and economic systems be dependent on having an ever increasing population in order to function, was a poorly thought out Ponzi scheme that sounded good post-WW2, but won't scale indefinitely, and isn't sustainable long term, but instead of admitting it, we've been kicking the can down the road ever since.

ARandomerDude 4y ago

I think you're saying you want fewer Africans? Is that right?

kerpotgh 4y ago
Fewer people in general but given that they’re the only continent reproducing above replacement rate, yes - specifically fewer Africans.
- kwere 4y ago
  africa is quite huge, farmland in hectares by person is "abundant". Stats about Arable land (hectares per person) in 2020 -> SubSaharian Africa : 0.19 Mena : 0.11 China : 0.08 India : 0.11 European Union : 0.22 U.S.A : 0.48 Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_desc=false https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_...