4 ms·

> Forget About Overpopulation, Soon There Will Be Too Few Humans This can be easily and summarily dismissed if you know anything about minimum population numbe

> Forget About Overpopulation, Soon There Will Be Too Few Humans This can be easily and summarily dismissed if you know anything about minimum population numbers. Humans will never, through simple declining birth rates, reach the low-or-sub-1000s numbers that would result in there being too few humans to maintain genetic diversity. https://www.livescience.com/minimum-people-to-survive-apocalypse.html https://www.livescience.com/minimum-people-to-survive-apocal... > how many people would it take to keep our species going? The short answer is, it depends. > "With populations in the low hundreds, you can probably survive for many centuries. And many small populations of that kind have survived for centuries and perhaps millennia," Cameron Smith, an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Portland State University in Oregon, told Live Science. What the article is really just arguing is that scientific advancement relies on larger populations, which, cool story bro. Having more kids in economically or ecologically untenable situations just to keep new tech being sold, is not a serious argument that people who are choosing not to have kids are going to be receptive to.

singularity2001 3y ago
Other than genetic minimum population numbers, there should be civilization minimum population numbers, and I'd suspect modern technology would allow for a few hundred(?) million people to hold up the same standard of living and progress.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Barring an apocalyptic scenario, Earth is never going to see populations dip back below 2 billion, and honestly probably never even below 5. It's not even declining now, it's just [growing YoY at 0.8% instead of 1.2%](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...). That's the "decline".
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Why? Why do you assume that people ever start procreating, when they are below replacement most everywhere? When does it stop? Why do you assume it does?
    - defrost 3y ago
      There's a lot to be learnt from looking at population dynamics of other species; animals and plants elsewhere on the planet, particulaly those on islands and other constrained by resource environs. It's more plausible to assume our population peaks, as predicted, then falls, and then levels out and stabilises | oscillates. It'd be odd for it to peak and then plummet to zero from 10 or 11 billion.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        Perhaps not to zero, maybe it was just an "algae bloom" of humanity. From which it would dwindle to half a billion thinly distibuted around the globe. And that's a medium scenario. If some kind of collapse happens, we may dip into half a million hunter-gatherers. Or half a million hi-tech bunker dwellers. Population dynamics are not very insightful. We see villages which had population for three millenia deserted, with nobody wishing to live in that empty place and grow their cattle or whatnot.
        defrost 3y ago
        > And that's a medium scenario. In your opinion, sure. For most that's just a fanciful outlier possibility.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        You assume that population will stabilize despite fertility falling univerasally all around the globe (with tiny but highly unpleasant exceptions). The economic issues are only projected to get worse. There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Great to be you.

singularity2001 3y ago

Other than genetic minimum population numbers, there should be civilization minimum population numbers, and I'd suspect modern technology would allow for a few hundred(?) million people to hold up the same standard of living and progress.

ang_cire 3y ago
Barring an apocalyptic scenario, Earth is never going to see populations dip back below 2 billion, and honestly probably never even below 5. It's not even declining now, it's just [growing YoY at 0.8% instead of 1.2%](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...). That's the "decline".
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Why? Why do you assume that people ever start procreating, when they are below replacement most everywhere? When does it stop? Why do you assume it does?
  - defrost 3y ago
    There's a lot to be learnt from looking at population dynamics of other species; animals and plants elsewhere on the planet, particulaly those on islands and other constrained by resource environs. It's more plausible to assume our population peaks, as predicted, then falls, and then levels out and stabilises | oscillates. It'd be odd for it to peak and then plummet to zero from 10 or 11 billion.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Perhaps not to zero, maybe it was just an "algae bloom" of humanity. From which it would dwindle to half a billion thinly distibuted around the globe. And that's a medium scenario. If some kind of collapse happens, we may dip into half a million hunter-gatherers. Or half a million hi-tech bunker dwellers. Population dynamics are not very insightful. We see villages which had population for three millenia deserted, with nobody wishing to live in that empty place and grow their cattle or whatnot.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > And that's a medium scenario. In your opinion, sure. For most that's just a fanciful outlier possibility.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        You assume that population will stabilize despite fertility falling univerasally all around the globe (with tiny but highly unpleasant exceptions). The economic issues are only projected to get worse. There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Great to be you.