3 ms·

> The overpopulation story is old, visceral and hard to refute. The overpopulation story is a joke, and has been since the many failed predictions of "The Popu

> The overpopulation story is old, visceral and hard to refute. The overpopulation story is a joke, and has been since the many failed predictions of "The Population Bomb" made it anathema in the academic and political worlds. There's nothing here or in any of the data that suggests anything other than an overshoot of a couple billion people, followed by a gradual decline into a steady state population. The overall doomerism about "overpopulation" or sudden, drastic shifts in population numbers is just that, doomerism.

pfdietz 3y ago
Where is this "steady state" coming from? Without feedback control, population growth is an exponential process that's inherently unstable, either growing or shrinking. What's the feedback here? Malthusianism provides the feedback with increase in death rate; what's the feedback to overcome a decline in birth rate?
sillywalk 3y ago
Have you looked at the news regarding record temperatures, floods, drought, wildfires, crop failures, antarctic sea ice decline, insurance being unavailable in certain areas, etc?
- cudgy 3y ago
  Insurance not being available could also be impacted by the huge increase in replacement costs due to inflationary pressures on real estate and repair costs; it could also be a conscious move to pressure lawmakers to pass more favorable laws. It could also be due to the increased populations moving to areas like coastal Florida where hurricanes have been sweeping in for thousands of years or Colorado where wildfires are part of the lifecycle of forests. Temperatures have fluctuated throughout history as have the ice levels in the arctic regions. People are certainly a factor, but there are general trends and cycles that earth follows as well. Depopulation may not greatly impact these incidents.
asah 3y ago
To be fair, mass misery is very real: starvation, thirst, poverty, forced migration, etc. It's just a "local" problem and internal so "doesn't count" to the popbomb deniers. Also, it's worth nothing that modern economic growth models pretty much all depend on population growth, so steady state population is a recipe for economic stagnation. Obviously, technology disrupts this but our economic systems aren't setup for that, e.g. UBI. Finally, climate impact is tied to population: fewer people, less impact.
- elcritch 3y ago
  > To be fair, mass misery is very real: starvation, thirst, poverty, forced migration, etc. It's just a "local" problem and internal so "doesn't count" to the popbomb deniers. Those have all been problems even with far lower population levels. By many statistics people worldwide have never been better off. Life expectancy, lower rates of military conflicts, etc are all generally improving.
  - asah 3y ago
    Absolutely. My point is that billions of people make it harder to avoid and some these problems. Mathematically, 10,000 people in one area can be airlifted out of a problem or have supplies brought in. 10,000,000 people are not easily moved or supplied.
tuyiown 3y ago
I don't understand, where did you find any study that proved that the capacity of feeding would grow with population ? It's easy to judge in hindsight, but 30 years ago, long before the current slowing of population growth, you had legitimate rights to worry about food production capacity increase, it _has_ a limit. Nowdays, given food inflation is partially due to shortage not only because of war, but instability in production. India just banned rice export. You're really that sure of your opinion ?
the_lego 3y ago
> The overpopulation story is a joke The human impact on the environment is proportional the population*. Here's an article on it, that doesn't look remotely humorous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen... *It's popular to blame it on 'lifestyle' instead. That's like blaming only 'A' for the size of 'C' in the equation A*B = C

pfdietz 3y ago

Where is this "steady state" coming from? Without feedback control, population growth is an exponential process that's inherently unstable, either growing or shrinking. What's the feedback here? Malthusianism provides the feedback with increase in death rate; what's the feedback to overcome a decline in birth rate?

sillywalk 3y ago

Have you looked at the news regarding record temperatures, floods, drought, wildfires, crop failures, antarctic sea ice decline, insurance being unavailable in certain areas, etc?

cudgy 3y ago
Insurance not being available could also be impacted by the huge increase in replacement costs due to inflationary pressures on real estate and repair costs; it could also be a conscious move to pressure lawmakers to pass more favorable laws. It could also be due to the increased populations moving to areas like coastal Florida where hurricanes have been sweeping in for thousands of years or Colorado where wildfires are part of the lifecycle of forests. Temperatures have fluctuated throughout history as have the ice levels in the arctic regions. People are certainly a factor, but there are general trends and cycles that earth follows as well. Depopulation may not greatly impact these incidents.

asah 3y ago

To be fair, mass misery is very real: starvation, thirst, poverty, forced migration, etc. It's just a "local" problem and internal so "doesn't count" to the popbomb deniers. Also, it's worth nothing that modern economic growth models pretty much all depend on population growth, so steady state population is a recipe for economic stagnation. Obviously, technology disrupts this but our economic systems aren't setup for that, e.g. UBI. Finally, climate impact is tied to population: fewer people, less impact.

elcritch 3y ago
> To be fair, mass misery is very real: starvation, thirst, poverty, forced migration, etc. It's just a "local" problem and internal so "doesn't count" to the popbomb deniers. Those have all been problems even with far lower population levels. By many statistics people worldwide have never been better off. Life expectancy, lower rates of military conflicts, etc are all generally improving.
- asah 3y ago
  Absolutely. My point is that billions of people make it harder to avoid and some these problems. Mathematically, 10,000 people in one area can be airlifted out of a problem or have supplies brought in. 10,000,000 people are not easily moved or supplied.

tuyiown 3y ago

I don't understand, where did you find any study that proved that the capacity of feeding would grow with population ? It's easy to judge in hindsight, but 30 years ago, long before the current slowing of population growth, you had legitimate rights to worry about food production capacity increase, it _has_ a limit. Nowdays, given food inflation is partially due to shortage not only because of war, but instability in production. India just banned rice export. You're really that sure of your opinion ?

the_lego 3y ago

> The overpopulation story is a joke The human impact on the environment is proportional the population*. Here's an article on it, that doesn't look remotely humorous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen... *It's popular to blame it on 'lifestyle' instead. That's like blaming only 'A' for the size of 'C' in the equation A*B = C