2 ms·

Humans are the second most populous animal on the planet. We are in no danger of extinction.

by saulpw 5mo ago

Ajedi32 5mo ago
If the trend doesn't reverse, it's mathematically guaranteed. But realistically, I agree. Civilizational collapse would happen long before extinction, which seems like it would almost certainly return the birth rate back to pre-industrial levels. I just don't think that's a desirable outcome either. Or, even more realistically, nations with state religions that effectively outlaw birth control and/or women's rights will take over the world, and nations which don't do those things will collapse. That also seems like a bad outcome to me. Point is, I don't think it's wise to treat this like it's not a problem.
- Legend2440 5mo ago
  It's not a problem. Go look at a graph of historical world population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3APopulation_curve.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3... It's virtually flat for eons, and then in the last 100 years it shoots up like a rocket. We didn't hit the first billion people until 1800, but the 8th billion took only 11 years. (2011-2022) This rate of exponential growth was never sustainable, and it's normal and natural that it's leveling off now.
BobaFloutist 5mo ago
I don't know where you got that idea, but we're not even the most populous species of vertebrates on the planet (that might be chickens). If you include arthropods, ants make it not even remotely close.
- saulpw 4mo ago
  "Land vertebrates", #1 is chickens, #2 is humans. But colloquially "animal" does not include ants or fish.
  - BobaFloutist 4mo ago
    Insects I'll consider fair enough, but fish? Are you leaning on "fish isn't meat"? Otherwise, this isn't a colloquial use I'm familiar with.
    - saulpw 4mo ago
      Just try referring to a fish, alive or dead or cooked, as an 'animal' to your friends. Even if it doesn't sound weird to you, your friends will feel misled in the conversation, even though it's technically/scientifically correct.
- blackoil 4mo ago
  In terms of biomass humans are much larger than ants.
- trumpdong 4mo ago
  Humans and our cattle are something like 95% of all land mammals, maybe they're thinking of that.
Qem 4mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon > The pigeon migrated in enormous flocks, constantly searching for food, shelter, and breeding grounds, and was once the most abundant bird in North America, numbering around 3 billion, and possibly up to 5 billion. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Humans are the second most populous animal on the planet. We are in no danger of extinction.

by saulpw 5mo ago

Humans are the second most populous animal on the planet. We are in no danger of extinction.

If the trend doesn't reverse, it's mathematically guaranteed. But realistically, I agree. Civilizational collapse would happen long before extinction, which seems like it would almost certainly return the birth rate back to pre-industrial levels. I just don't think that's a desirable outcome either. Or, even more realistically, nations with state religions that effectively outlaw birth control and/or women's rights will take over the world, and nations which don't do those things will collapse. That also seems like a bad outcome to me. Point is, I don't think it's wise to treat this like it's not a problem.

Legend2440 5mo ago
It's not a problem. Go look at a graph of historical world population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3APopulation_curve.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3... It's virtually flat for eons, and then in the last 100 years it shoots up like a rocket. We didn't hit the first billion people until 1800, but the 8th billion took only 11 years. (2011-2022) This rate of exponential growth was never sustainable, and it's normal and natural that it's leveling off now.

BobaFloutist 5mo ago

I don't know where you got that idea, but we're not even the most populous species of vertebrates on the planet (that might be chickens). If you include arthropods, ants make it not even remotely close.

saulpw 4mo ago
"Land vertebrates", #1 is chickens, #2 is humans. But colloquially "animal" does not include ants or fish.
- BobaFloutist 4mo ago
  Insects I'll consider fair enough, but fish? Are you leaning on "fish isn't meat"? Otherwise, this isn't a colloquial use I'm familiar with.
  - saulpw 4mo ago
    Just try referring to a fish, alive or dead or cooked, as an 'animal' to your friends. Even if it doesn't sound weird to you, your friends will feel misled in the conversation, even though it's technically/scientifically correct.
blackoil 4mo ago
In terms of biomass humans are much larger than ants.
trumpdong 4mo ago
Humans and our cattle are something like 95% of all land mammals, maybe they're thinking of that.

Qem 4mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon > The pigeon migrated in enormous flocks, constantly searching for food, shelter, and breeding grounds, and was once the most abundant bird in North America, numbering around 3 billion, and possibly up to 5 billion. Past performance is not indicative of future results.