6 ms·

Within my lifetime the population of the planet has doubled, from 4 billion to 8 billion. That was a dangerous, sudden surge. If we take a break, and maybe lowe

Within my lifetime the population of the planet has doubled, from 4 billion to 8 billion. That was a dangerous, sudden surge. If we take a break, and maybe lower the population a little, that seems like a positive thing. "Population doubles in one lifetime" is something I expect from bacteria, not complex mammals that use much of the planet's resources.

EnigmaFlare 3y ago
Your same argument could be applied to technology. Should we maybe underclock our computers a little too, just in case of some nebulous fear of speed?
tczMUFlmoNk 3y ago
It does seem worth noting that 4→8 billion took 48 years (1974–2022), whereas 2→4 billion took 47 years (1927–1974). So at the very least the growth rate is not entirely novel in the range that you quote. By contrast, 1→2 billion took 123 years (1804–1927), according to the estimates of at [1], though Wikipedia suggests that data prior to the 20th century may be unreliable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_milestones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_milestones
switchbak 3y ago
At first glance this sounds reasonable. But when you actually examine what a demographic collapse on a grand scale could look like - it's possible that this amount to the kind of suffering that we haven't seen in a century. There's no way to know, because it's uncharted territory, but the potential downside seems huge. "maybe lower the population a little" - some societies will have some gradual reduction in population. Many countries are already or will soon have their populations of young people decline drastically. Our societies are pretty fragile systems, and when you change the ratio of young to old at the rate we're going to, it's hard to anticipate how these systems will cope.
mbrumlow 3y ago
Eh. Ans in your lifetime you possibly saw humanity use horse and cart as main transportation to the cyber truck (depending on your age) This does not happen without population growth. You also saw the quality of life of the average person also more than double. Even if you expect it from bacteria, you imply it a bad because bacteria? What sort of logic is this? Should humanity stop doing anything it sees other forms of life it does not view favorably doing? If so. You go first… let’s start with breathing.
- itishappy 3y ago
  > Even if you expect it from bacteria, you imply it a bad because bacteria? What sort of logic is this? What happens to bacteria in a sealed system? The population grows until it hits carrying capacity, then drops precipitously once resources run out. That doesn't sound like the ideal model for society to adopt.
  - mbrumlow 3y ago
    I would more call our system closed. If you assumptions were right bacteria would rule the world and that is all we would find. But beyond that you forget how big the earth is, not to mention the billions of habitual planets humans one day will call home (although net might not call them humans, but who knows)
disambiguation 3y ago
What do you think is the optimal population level?
- moffkalast 3y ago
  9 Billion, all Borg.
- lkrubner 3y ago
  Somewhere between 500 million to 2 billion is probably comfortable. Anywhere in that range offers a reasonable trade-off between wealth versus strain on the environment. More people means more wealth but also more strain on the environment, but anywhere in that range we still have some non-crisis choices available.

EnigmaFlare 3y ago

Your same argument could be applied to technology. Should we maybe underclock our computers a little too, just in case of some nebulous fear of speed?

tczMUFlmoNk 3y ago

It does seem worth noting that 4→8 billion took 48 years (1974–2022), whereas 2→4 billion took 47 years (1927–1974). So at the very least the growth rate is not entirely novel in the range that you quote. By contrast, 1→2 billion took 123 years (1804–1927), according to the estimates of at [1], though Wikipedia suggests that data prior to the 20th century may be unreliable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_milestones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_milestones

switchbak 3y ago

At first glance this sounds reasonable. But when you actually examine what a demographic collapse on a grand scale could look like - it's possible that this amount to the kind of suffering that we haven't seen in a century. There's no way to know, because it's uncharted territory, but the potential downside seems huge. "maybe lower the population a little" - some societies will have some gradual reduction in population. Many countries are already or will soon have their populations of young people decline drastically. Our societies are pretty fragile systems, and when you change the ratio of young to old at the rate we're going to, it's hard to anticipate how these systems will cope.

mbrumlow 3y ago

Eh. Ans in your lifetime you possibly saw humanity use horse and cart as main transportation to the cyber truck (depending on your age) This does not happen without population growth. You also saw the quality of life of the average person also more than double. Even if you expect it from bacteria, you imply it a bad because bacteria? What sort of logic is this? Should humanity stop doing anything it sees other forms of life it does not view favorably doing? If so. You go first… let’s start with breathing.

itishappy 3y ago
> Even if you expect it from bacteria, you imply it a bad because bacteria? What sort of logic is this? What happens to bacteria in a sealed system? The population grows until it hits carrying capacity, then drops precipitously once resources run out. That doesn't sound like the ideal model for society to adopt.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  I would more call our system closed. If you assumptions were right bacteria would rule the world and that is all we would find. But beyond that you forget how big the earth is, not to mention the billions of habitual planets humans one day will call home (although net might not call them humans, but who knows)

disambiguation 3y ago

What do you think is the optimal population level?

moffkalast 3y ago
9 Billion, all Borg.
lkrubner 3y ago
Somewhere between 500 million to 2 billion is probably comfortable. Anywhere in that range offers a reasonable trade-off between wealth versus strain on the environment. More people means more wealth but also more strain on the environment, but anywhere in that range we still have some non-crisis choices available.