4 ms·

Yes and this goes into some awkward Thanos did nothing wrong territory. I’m sure there’s serious research out there on what the fundamental population limit of

by heads 3y ago

Yes and this goes into some awkward Thanos did nothing wrong territory. I’m sure there’s serious research out there on what the fundamental population limit of Earth should be if we are to bound it based on minimal ecological impact.

hiddencost 3y ago
"Malthus" is taught in high school. The idea comes up all over intellectual history and has yet to pan out. One of these days.
- ben_w 3y ago
  What's taught in high school is generally simplified to the point of falsehood. What Malthus wrote about was basically the lived experiences of those around him for basically all of what he knew of to be recorded history: improved farming meant more people, not happier people. Now, I'm not qualified to even judge if Jared Diamond's even fair let alone correct, but he wrote in Collapse (2005) that the Rwandan Genocide was brought about in part due to excessive population pressures, that it "illustrates a case where Malthus's worst-case scenario does seem to have been right." On the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that widespread access to contraceptives may break the assumptions behind Malthus.
  - CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
    May? All developed countries have subreplacement fertility [1] (and falling) the world population is predicted to peak before the end of the century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
    - ben_w 3y ago
      For now, yes; there is also a distinct possibility that the sub-populations who have more kids do so because of some genetic tendency (singular or plural) which would, if it actually exists and isn't mere hypothetical, rapidly reverse this.
ben_w 3y ago
There probably is such research, but "minimum ecological impact" is highly subjective and technology dependent. We had some impact as hunter-gatherers at 10M population, probably made some species extinct from hunting. If I assumed c. 1940 tech was the limit and wanted to minimise human ecological impact, this population would be the maximum sustainable given CO2 emissions. Conversely, if we put submarine cities in deep water, powered by PV on the surface that are ready to withdraw when storms come[0] and feed ourselves on the most efficient foods we already know how to grow in sealed environments, we could probably support trillions of people… but at that level we might possibly need to find some asteroids rich in, IDK, phosphorus or something. I have seen larger maximum population numbers, but they're for scenarios where you fairly strongly disregard the ecology — if you're willing to do weird stuff like putting up an L1 sun shade to block wavelengths of sunlight that serve only to heat us up because they get fully absorbed by the atmosphere, but somewhere in the 10-100 trillion range our direct heat emissions become dominant. [0] ignore the expense, this is a thought experiment
jacquesm 3y ago
> I’m sure there’s serious research out there on what the fundamental population limit of Earth should be if we are to bound it based on minimal ecological impact. There is but there is a 7/8ths probability that you're not going to like the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

by heads 3y ago

hiddencost 3y ago

"Malthus" is taught in high school. The idea comes up all over intellectual history and has yet to pan out. One of these days.

ben_w 3y ago
What's taught in high school is generally simplified to the point of falsehood. What Malthus wrote about was basically the lived experiences of those around him for basically all of what he knew of to be recorded history: improved farming meant more people, not happier people. Now, I'm not qualified to even judge if Jared Diamond's even fair let alone correct, but he wrote in Collapse (2005) that the Rwandan Genocide was brought about in part due to excessive population pressures, that it "illustrates a case where Malthus's worst-case scenario does seem to have been right." On the other hand, it also seems plausible to me that widespread access to contraceptives may break the assumptions behind Malthus.
- CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
  May? All developed countries have subreplacement fertility [1] (and falling) the world population is predicted to peak before the end of the century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
  - ben_w 3y ago
    For now, yes; there is also a distinct possibility that the sub-populations who have more kids do so because of some genetic tendency (singular or plural) which would, if it actually exists and isn't mere hypothetical, rapidly reverse this.

ben_w 3y ago

There probably is such research, but "minimum ecological impact" is highly subjective and technology dependent. We had some impact as hunter-gatherers at 10M population, probably made some species extinct from hunting. If I assumed c. 1940 tech was the limit and wanted to minimise human ecological impact, this population would be the maximum sustainable given CO2 emissions. Conversely, if we put submarine cities in deep water, powered by PV on the surface that are ready to withdraw when storms come[0] and feed ourselves on the most efficient foods we already know how to grow in sealed environments, we could probably support trillions of people… but at that level we might possibly need to find some asteroids rich in, IDK, phosphorus or something. I have seen larger maximum population numbers, but they're for scenarios where you fairly strongly disregard the ecology — if you're willing to do weird stuff like putting up an L1 sun shade to block wavelengths of sunlight that serve only to heat us up because they get fully absorbed by the atmosphere, but somewhere in the 10-100 trillion range our direct heat emissions become dominant. [0] ignore the expense, this is a thought experiment

jacquesm 3y ago

> I’m sure there’s serious research out there on what the fundamental population limit of Earth should be if we are to bound it based on minimal ecological impact. There is but there is a 7/8ths probability that you're not going to like the answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population