7 ms·

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the pla

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the planet for food and other resources will also lessen. Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. These people can only think of humans as net negative parasites on the planet, rather than individual agents with a positive expected value to society. Density is GOOD — it leads to cross-pollination of ideas and the advancement of the world. Yes, the planet is on a path that will require us to eventually get smarter about resource consumption. Advocating fewer people on Earth is the most harmful & naive way to solve that problem. If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. [edit: I'd remove the last paragraph if it weren't intellectually dishonest to do so. I feel like it's causing people to miss my main point. It was written more out of anger than reason. Please ignore.]

omegant 13y ago
Honest question: What population do you find excessive and too much for the Earth to be able to sustain it?. By the way, Japan is not throwing people to the sea, just not replacing the ones that pass away, quite a big difference IMHO.
- didgeoridoo 13y ago
  Morally, yes there's a huge difference. In terms of long-term economic, technological, and societal impact? Not really.
gtaylor 13y ago
> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. Nobody is being thrown overboard. The article is just pointing out that it may not necessarily be catastrophic if population growth slows or even reverses for a time. We're all just speculating, whether you agree or disagree. In support of the article, slower population growth would reduce resource consumption. Rampant population growth would speed up the resource depletion process. As certain crucial resources become more scarce, conflict is likely to follow. It'd only be a matter of time before large scale war followed, perhaps leading to an extinction event. There are definite positives and negatives to slowing growth rates, but I think there are probably more positives if we're talking about a gradual slowing (as opposed to a sudden tanking). We can do a lot more with a lot less today. Many of us don't need massive families anymore, and that's OK.
- didgeoridoo 13y ago
  A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not. Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life. Agriculture was the technology that allowed more than a few hundred thousand humans to live on the planet. Humanity has a pretty good track record of coming up with the next tech in plenty of time. Panglossian? Maybe. But I'd rather be Pangloss (syphilis and all) than a misanthrope like Ehrlich or Malthus.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    > Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base Overpopulation destroys quality of life. You can't fix that by throwing more technology at the problem. Technology isn't going to make more nice beachfront property accessible and affordable for middle class family vacations. Technology isn't going to make more high grade wild tuna, or quiet walks in empty woods.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      We should invent a huge space water boiler; this way we can warm up nothern coasts of Canada and Russia and get nearly unlimited beach front. In Stanislaw Lem's book the main character lived on Greenland warmed up from space to allow subtropical climate. I guess this idea will cause any environmentally-aware hipster from California to have a heart attack.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      No. But declining populations destroys quality of life. With an ageing population you need someone to "work" in order to cover state-subsidised health care, housing, unemployment, pensions and other living costs for those that are still alive but not working. And technology can absolutely solve a lot of problems. Being able to grow commercial quantities of meat in laboratories will change the world overnight. As will revolutionising public transportation, power grids, storage technologies, cars etc.
sn0v 13y ago
A positive contribution to society and a positive contribution to the planet aren't necessarily the same. Sure, more intellectuals mean faster societal development. That doesn't take away from the pressure an increased population places on our limited natural resources.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  GP isn't saying "we should have more intellectuals", he/she is saying "we should have more people because that way we get more intellectuals". IMHO it's a big difference.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I follow your argument. I will note though that Japan is already land- and natural resources-bound in ways the United States has never had to struggle with. It's a smallish island nation with lots of mountainous (difficult to farm) terrain. I believe Japan has not been able to feed itself without imports for ages. If there is anywhere downsizing population might make sense, it would be there.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  Hong Kong and Singapore are much worse when it comes to feeding themself yet they have no problem doing so. In practice, they are the richest. Russia has infinite resources of growing food which is only constrained by the fact that it's not very profitable. Nobody it the world wants food so badly to pay for in same kind of money they cough up for oil. Food is not the constraint, neither is living space.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Hong Kong and Singapore have land borders. Japan does not, making them more vulnerable than usual. Russia doesn't grow an infinite amount of food, because most of the rest of the world can supply itself with food. If the USA's domestic food production dropped to zero, growing food in Russia would get profitable very quickly.
Daishiman 13y ago
> Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. We are currently experiencing a human-induced mass extinction event and reduction of biodiversity comparable to the largest natural catastrophes in the planet. The way things are going, by the end of the century most of the large mammalian predators will be definitely extinct, and if carbon emissions are not reduced by the end of the century, by which we should become a carbon-negative society, the oceans will not be able to support most of the base of its food chain. I question your valuation of human society above the base of the biological systems that support its very existence. A large population living in a humongous wasteland is of dubious utility for its inhabitants. I reckon you haven't been able to see the true impacts of humans on most of the ecosystems in the planet. Ultimately, I think you're confusing density with population; a large population is not a requirement for a dense population. Furthermore, the percentage of the population that contributes to innovation is a very, very restricted subset of it.
- revelation 13y ago
  I don't get it. The ecosystem is not a constant system. It is summary randomness, guided by evolution. Whatever you are trying to preserve, be assured new randomness will happily take its place.
  - wtracy 13y ago
    The current randomness supports human life. I'm not so sure that whatever replaces it will too.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    You mean the way mold is happily taking the place of entire coral reefs? Biodiversity is not just an ethical concern; biodiversity is useful to humankind.
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    If your randomness consists of oceans of jellyfish and insects as the most complex land animals, sure. If you want to actually get to witness the full extent of birds, mammals, and large reptiles, no amount of evolution will supplant those for several millions of years.
ahomescu1 13y ago
> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. You try to patch it, but it also makes a lot of sense to stop bringing more people onboard. Lowering birth rates is an example of the latter, not of throwing people overboard.
iterative 13y ago
Good luck trying to convince people. I think that Malthusianism just makes sense to people instinctively, and that counts for much more than the fact that it's been proven incorrect over and over again. Even though doom and gloom about things like "overpopulation" have been debunked time and again by people like Julian Simon ("The Ultimate Resource") you'll never convince people who've bought into it to change their minds.
TheAldGarde 13y ago
Throwing people overboard is analogous to killing. Not reproducing isn't killing. Bad analogy. Look at it more like we're on a cruise liner lost eternally at sea. Sure, there's a garden on deck that supplies food, but it only supplies enough for X people. And the fuel is limited. Wait, that's not really metaphorical at all. That's almost the literal situation earth faces. But, yeah, patch the raft. And stop having 4 kids.
reirob 13y ago
> Density is GOOD — it leads to cross-pollination of ideas and the advancement of the world. How much density is needed to make progress? At which point too much density becomes a danger and what kind of danger? I guess that there might be already some answers to these question. And in my opinion it IS important that we start talking about this. Because the only discussion that I hear until now is that many countries have not enough children (e.g. Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy - just to name few that I have seen in print media in Europe) which is seen as a danger. But talking about socially and psychologically positive solutions how to better distribute population density - nobody is speaking about this. I guess that one of the reasons is because we still think in national boundaries. But this is not the only one. I think the deeper reasons might be more on an instinctive level? I do not know, but I find it good that we start talking about un-growth of population instead just having a taboo.

omegant 13y ago

Honest question: What population do you find excessive and too much for the Earth to be able to sustain it?. By the way, Japan is not throwing people to the sea, just not replacing the ones that pass away, quite a big difference IMHO.

didgeoridoo 13y ago
Morally, yes there's a huge difference. In terms of long-term economic, technological, and societal impact? Not really.

gtaylor 13y ago

> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. Nobody is being thrown overboard. The article is just pointing out that it may not necessarily be catastrophic if population growth slows or even reverses for a time. We're all just speculating, whether you agree or disagree. In support of the article, slower population growth would reduce resource consumption. Rampant population growth would speed up the resource depletion process. As certain crucial resources become more scarce, conflict is likely to follow. It'd only be a matter of time before large scale war followed, perhaps leading to an extinction event. There are definite positives and negatives to slowing growth rates, but I think there are probably more positives if we're talking about a gradual slowing (as opposed to a sudden tanking). We can do a lot more with a lot less today. Many of us don't need massive families anymore, and that's OK.

didgeoridoo 13y ago
A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not. Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life. Agriculture was the technology that allowed more than a few hundred thousand humans to live on the planet. Humanity has a pretty good track record of coming up with the next tech in plenty of time. Panglossian? Maybe. But I'd rather be Pangloss (syphilis and all) than a misanthrope like Ehrlich or Malthus.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  > Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base Overpopulation destroys quality of life. You can't fix that by throwing more technology at the problem. Technology isn't going to make more nice beachfront property accessible and affordable for middle class family vacations. Technology isn't going to make more high grade wild tuna, or quiet walks in empty woods.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    We should invent a huge space water boiler; this way we can warm up nothern coasts of Canada and Russia and get nearly unlimited beach front. In Stanislaw Lem's book the main character lived on Greenland warmed up from space to allow subtropical climate. I guess this idea will cause any environmentally-aware hipster from California to have a heart attack.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    No. But declining populations destroys quality of life. With an ageing population you need someone to "work" in order to cover state-subsidised health care, housing, unemployment, pensions and other living costs for those that are still alive but not working. And technology can absolutely solve a lot of problems. Being able to grow commercial quantities of meat in laboratories will change the world overnight. As will revolutionising public transportation, power grids, storage technologies, cars etc.

sn0v 13y ago

A positive contribution to society and a positive contribution to the planet aren't necessarily the same. Sure, more intellectuals mean faster societal development. That doesn't take away from the pressure an increased population places on our limited natural resources.

ahomescu1 13y ago
GP isn't saying "we should have more intellectuals", he/she is saying "we should have more people because that way we get more intellectuals". IMHO it's a big difference.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I follow your argument. I will note though that Japan is already land- and natural resources-bound in ways the United States has never had to struggle with. It's a smallish island nation with lots of mountainous (difficult to farm) terrain. I believe Japan has not been able to feed itself without imports for ages. If there is anywhere downsizing population might make sense, it would be there.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
Hong Kong and Singapore are much worse when it comes to feeding themself yet they have no problem doing so. In practice, they are the richest. Russia has infinite resources of growing food which is only constrained by the fact that it's not very profitable. Nobody it the world wants food so badly to pay for in same kind of money they cough up for oil. Food is not the constraint, neither is living space.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Hong Kong and Singapore have land borders. Japan does not, making them more vulnerable than usual. Russia doesn't grow an infinite amount of food, because most of the rest of the world can supply itself with food. If the USA's domestic food production dropped to zero, growing food in Russia would get profitable very quickly.

Daishiman 13y ago

> Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. We are currently experiencing a human-induced mass extinction event and reduction of biodiversity comparable to the largest natural catastrophes in the planet. The way things are going, by the end of the century most of the large mammalian predators will be definitely extinct, and if carbon emissions are not reduced by the end of the century, by which we should become a carbon-negative society, the oceans will not be able to support most of the base of its food chain. I question your valuation of human society above the base of the biological systems that support its very existence. A large population living in a humongous wasteland is of dubious utility for its inhabitants. I reckon you haven't been able to see the true impacts of humans on most of the ecosystems in the planet. Ultimately, I think you're confusing density with population; a large population is not a requirement for a dense population. Furthermore, the percentage of the population that contributes to innovation is a very, very restricted subset of it.

revelation 13y ago
I don't get it. The ecosystem is not a constant system. It is summary randomness, guided by evolution. Whatever you are trying to preserve, be assured new randomness will happily take its place.
- wtracy 13y ago
  The current randomness supports human life. I'm not so sure that whatever replaces it will too.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  You mean the way mold is happily taking the place of entire coral reefs? Biodiversity is not just an ethical concern; biodiversity is useful to humankind.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  If your randomness consists of oceans of jellyfish and insects as the most complex land animals, sure. If you want to actually get to witness the full extent of birds, mammals, and large reptiles, no amount of evolution will supplant those for several millions of years.

ahomescu1 13y ago

> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. You try to patch it, but it also makes a lot of sense to stop bringing more people onboard. Lowering birth rates is an example of the latter, not of throwing people overboard.

iterative 13y ago

Good luck trying to convince people. I think that Malthusianism just makes sense to people instinctively, and that counts for much more than the fact that it's been proven incorrect over and over again. Even though doom and gloom about things like "overpopulation" have been debunked time and again by people like Julian Simon ("The Ultimate Resource") you'll never convince people who've bought into it to change their minds.

TheAldGarde 13y ago

Throwing people overboard is analogous to killing. Not reproducing isn't killing. Bad analogy. Look at it more like we're on a cruise liner lost eternally at sea. Sure, there's a garden on deck that supplies food, but it only supplies enough for X people. And the fuel is limited. Wait, that's not really metaphorical at all. That's almost the literal situation earth faces. But, yeah, patch the raft. And stop having 4 kids.

reirob 13y ago

> Density is GOOD — it leads to cross-pollination of ideas and the advancement of the world. How much density is needed to make progress? At which point too much density becomes a danger and what kind of danger? I guess that there might be already some answers to these question. And in my opinion it IS important that we start talking about this. Because the only discussion that I hear until now is that many countries have not enough children (e.g. Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy - just to name few that I have seen in print media in Europe) which is seen as a danger. But talking about socially and psychologically positive solutions how to better distribute population density - nobody is speaking about this. I guess that one of the reasons is because we still think in national boundaries. But this is not the only one. I think the deeper reasons might be more on an instinctive level? I do not know, but I find it good that we start talking about un-growth of population instead just having a taboo.