3 ms·

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.ph... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/a

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.ph... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ "For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time." ----- In the long term, there's no reason not to expect further exponential growth once human psychology and physiology are removed from the picture as the main drivers of whether or not population expands. The earth could support vastly more people than it does even with today's technology. Once it is possible to create intelligences very rapidly, and when there are non-human intelligence creators involved in the picture, I'd expect to see a vast explosion of sentience and colonization.

kzrdude 14y ago
I see a quote where the estimated possible population is basically derived directly from the land area required for habitation alone which is rubbish. We need to account for resource use as in food, energy, fertilizer, freshwater etc. I hope you'll feel refreshed to hear about a different resource peak than the usual, here's about limited phosphorus for fertilizer: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-lifeare.html http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-lifeare.ht...
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.
  - graeme 14y ago
    Technology requires support from resources. You can't respond to claims that our resources are limited merely by arguing that we will develop more technologies that use resources.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      We have enough uranium mined to last us about 1 or 2 thousands year. Now, with energy we can do things like desalinate water and make fertilizer. The only reason we don't do more nuclear power now is because there are cheaper options.
      - wombleton 14y ago
        The argument is not that we will suddenly be unable to desalinate water and so forth, it's that the price will rise to put more people into starvation. Claiming that all that will happen is the price (for energy, food, water, soil, maintaining biodiversity, etc) will rise is exactly the problem.
        rdl 14y ago
        It doesn't even need to push us anywhere near starvation to suck. If we have cheap non-renewable resources, they allow us to live a much better quality of life than we would otherwise. If a barrel of oil comes out of the ground with 5 minutes of human effort, and then lets us fly from SFO to NYC, that's one level of awesomeness. If we burn up all the easy oil and the barrel of oil requires an hour of human effort to bring out of the ground, we're worse off. Technology helps (maybe we can drill more efficiently, and maybe we can burn the oil more efficiently, and maybe we can find a good substitute for oil), but If we had a certain economic surplus due to high quality natural resources being available, then having more people means we need to use lower-quality marginal sources. Plus, with time, we use up the high quality natural resources. More productive people should help us improve technology as well, vs. just providing more total labor. On the other hand, if population increases to the point where surplus is reduced, we're less likely to invest in education or other investments which improve the value of human capital, focusing instead on subsistence.

kzrdude 14y ago

I see a quote where the estimated possible population is basically derived directly from the land area required for habitation alone which is rubbish. We need to account for resource use as in food, energy, fertilizer, freshwater etc. I hope you'll feel refreshed to hear about a different resource peak than the usual, here's about limited phosphorus for fertilizer: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-lifeare.html http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-lifeare.ht...

youngerdryas 14y ago
Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.
- graeme 14y ago
  Technology requires support from resources. You can't respond to claims that our resources are limited merely by arguing that we will develop more technologies that use resources.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    We have enough uranium mined to last us about 1 or 2 thousands year. Now, with energy we can do things like desalinate water and make fertilizer. The only reason we don't do more nuclear power now is because there are cheaper options.
    - wombleton 14y ago
      The argument is not that we will suddenly be unable to desalinate water and so forth, it's that the price will rise to put more people into starvation. Claiming that all that will happen is the price (for energy, food, water, soil, maintaining biodiversity, etc) will rise is exactly the problem.
      - rdl 14y ago
        It doesn't even need to push us anywhere near starvation to suck. If we have cheap non-renewable resources, they allow us to live a much better quality of life than we would otherwise. If a barrel of oil comes out of the ground with 5 minutes of human effort, and then lets us fly from SFO to NYC, that's one level of awesomeness. If we burn up all the easy oil and the barrel of oil requires an hour of human effort to bring out of the ground, we're worse off. Technology helps (maybe we can drill more efficiently, and maybe we can burn the oil more efficiently, and maybe we can find a good substitute for oil), but If we had a certain economic surplus due to high quality natural resources being available, then having more people means we need to use lower-quality marginal sources. Plus, with time, we use up the high quality natural resources. More productive people should help us improve technology as well, vs. just providing more total labor. On the other hand, if population increases to the point where surplus is reduced, we're less likely to invest in education or other investments which improve the value of human capital, focusing instead on subsistence.