5 ms·

> What ecological pessimists forget is that so far scientists have always been able to stay ahead of resource scarcity. They have always found better, less toxi

> What ecological pessimists forget is that so far scientists have always been able to stay ahead of resource scarcity. They have always found better, less toxic replacements for what we’ve lost. Wrong. Very wrong. Humanity has been living over carrying capacity since the beginning of time. We always produce more offspring than what the environment/society can sustain. It is only recently (last 50 years?) and in a very limited area (first-world) that we are living below carrying capacity (of that region). The world as a whole is very much living above carrying capacity. And no, it does not matter that we are "wasting food" in the first world. For all intent and purposes, that food is not available to the rest of the world. Until we are able to first feed and then procreate, keeping the demographic curve well behind the food production curve, we are doomed. But that will never happen: as soon as scarcity is not an issue, we tend to reproduce like rabbits. We are very much a virus.

rtpg 11y ago
The "overpopulation until the end" myth is completely debunked by the demographic curves of many different developed countries (Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan to name some). I think the common assumption is that the population of nations as they develop taper off eventually.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  The "population is controlled whenever technology is able to lead the way" is a myth which is based on the false assumption that "technology is able to lead the way". Humanity has not followed that pattern in the last 200 thousand years, and nothing suggests we will be able to get to that utopia.
treerock 11y ago
This makes no sense. The evidence (we still survive and population keeps growing) suggests that we a living well within the carrying capacity of the earth. Technology, invention, social adaptation all help to increase that carrying capacity, making more efficient use of available resources. That may not continue indefinitely, but also population growth may not continue indefinitely. We are not a virus.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  We have been losing population to starvation since forever. We keep losing population to starvation. We are not able to feed the population of the Earth. We are living above carrying capacity. Worse: we can not change this. It is part of our human nature, probably a defining characteristic of life, at least as evolved here on Earth. A species prefers to produce more offspring and lose some, guaranteeing that at least some of that offspring is going to be passing genes down the genealogical tree. What makes this specially worrisome in the case of the human species is that we have gotten so efficient at extracting resources, that we have been able to fuel an exponential growth without precedent in the history of life on the planet - with the exception of some micro-organisms, which actually are what we are most similar to. Having become so good at extracting resources, and having grown so much in numbers, means that whenever a resource problem arises, the population collapse is going to be fast and furious. I doubt we will be able to keep our technology running in such a catastrophic scenario.
  - dagw 11y ago
    We have been losing population to starvation since forever. We keep losing population to starvation. But that is purely down to distribution problems, not capacity problems. There exists enough food on planet, we're just not very good at getting to the people who need it.
    - gonvaled 11y ago
      That is the point: we do not care, we just reproduce. We have been doing that (reproducing over the real carrying capacity, which is what the local environment can sustain) forever. You can argue that we'll get soon better at distributing food, but that is just wishful thinking. And, human nature being what it is, improving food distribution will just lead us to a bigger population increase, keeping us above carrying capacity. There is no period of human history when humanity has managed to sustainable restrain its growth. We go wherever technology can bring us, but always a little bit farther. It is simply not how life works: life overproduces to guarantee delivery. For that scenario that you are proposing to become reality we need to reign on very strong instincts acquired during millions of years of evolution. I am not saying that it can not be done, just that we are not there, that we are not getting anywhere near, and that I think the chances of bringing about that utopia are really slim. Mad Max is way more probable.
fit2rule 11y ago
> For all intent and purposes, that food is not available to the rest of the world. That's the point - its by intention and purpose. If we had the purpose as a society to feed people, we would have done it already many times over. But the intention is just not there..
- gonvaled 11y ago
  And I think that: 1) That will never be a priority. We have so many things which are more important to us, and it is just such a difficult problem to solve because of: 2) Whenever (by some magic coincidence?) we are able to feed the whole world population by better distributing the available food, we will do what we have always done: increase population above carrying capacity. As said, we are fighting against a very basic mechanism of life: overproduction of offspring. It is an uphill battle.
  - eru 11y ago
    Why do so many rich countries have below replacement rate fertility, then? (Eg Germany, Italy, Japan..)
    - gonvaled 11y ago
      That is the anomaly, as I have stated above. It is an open question if we are able to extend that behaviour to the rest of humankind. Even China's one-child policy has not managed to control population growth. For that to happen, it would seem that we need to increase the world standard of living to the american/european level. Given the consumption footprint that would mean, it is highly questionable if we will ever achieve that. Not impossible, just questionable. I still think Mad Max is more likely.
      - eru 11y ago
        Yes, China's one-child policy didn't seem to make too much of a difference, but that's because Chinese fertility rates fell even in areas that didn't enforce the one-child policy. The consumption footprint is easily achievable---the limiting factor is energy burned per day. Nuclear (or cheap solar) can change that.

rtpg 11y ago

The "overpopulation until the end" myth is completely debunked by the demographic curves of many different developed countries (Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan to name some). I think the common assumption is that the population of nations as they develop taper off eventually.

gonvaled 11y ago
The "population is controlled whenever technology is able to lead the way" is a myth which is based on the false assumption that "technology is able to lead the way". Humanity has not followed that pattern in the last 200 thousand years, and nothing suggests we will be able to get to that utopia.

treerock 11y ago

This makes no sense. The evidence (we still survive and population keeps growing) suggests that we a living well within the carrying capacity of the earth. Technology, invention, social adaptation all help to increase that carrying capacity, making more efficient use of available resources. That may not continue indefinitely, but also population growth may not continue indefinitely. We are not a virus.

gonvaled 11y ago
We have been losing population to starvation since forever. We keep losing population to starvation. We are not able to feed the population of the Earth. We are living above carrying capacity. Worse: we can not change this. It is part of our human nature, probably a defining characteristic of life, at least as evolved here on Earth. A species prefers to produce more offspring and lose some, guaranteeing that at least some of that offspring is going to be passing genes down the genealogical tree. What makes this specially worrisome in the case of the human species is that we have gotten so efficient at extracting resources, that we have been able to fuel an exponential growth without precedent in the history of life on the planet - with the exception of some micro-organisms, which actually are what we are most similar to. Having become so good at extracting resources, and having grown so much in numbers, means that whenever a resource problem arises, the population collapse is going to be fast and furious. I doubt we will be able to keep our technology running in such a catastrophic scenario.
- dagw 11y ago
  We have been losing population to starvation since forever. We keep losing population to starvation. But that is purely down to distribution problems, not capacity problems. There exists enough food on planet, we're just not very good at getting to the people who need it.
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    That is the point: we do not care, we just reproduce. We have been doing that (reproducing over the real carrying capacity, which is what the local environment can sustain) forever. You can argue that we'll get soon better at distributing food, but that is just wishful thinking. And, human nature being what it is, improving food distribution will just lead us to a bigger population increase, keeping us above carrying capacity. There is no period of human history when humanity has managed to sustainable restrain its growth. We go wherever technology can bring us, but always a little bit farther. It is simply not how life works: life overproduces to guarantee delivery. For that scenario that you are proposing to become reality we need to reign on very strong instincts acquired during millions of years of evolution. I am not saying that it can not be done, just that we are not there, that we are not getting anywhere near, and that I think the chances of bringing about that utopia are really slim. Mad Max is way more probable.

fit2rule 11y ago

> For all intent and purposes, that food is not available to the rest of the world. That's the point - its by intention and purpose. If we had the purpose as a society to feed people, we would have done it already many times over. But the intention is just not there..

gonvaled 11y ago
And I think that: 1) That will never be a priority. We have so many things which are more important to us, and it is just such a difficult problem to solve because of: 2) Whenever (by some magic coincidence?) we are able to feed the whole world population by better distributing the available food, we will do what we have always done: increase population above carrying capacity. As said, we are fighting against a very basic mechanism of life: overproduction of offspring. It is an uphill battle.
- eru 11y ago
  Why do so many rich countries have below replacement rate fertility, then? (Eg Germany, Italy, Japan..)
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    That is the anomaly, as I have stated above. It is an open question if we are able to extend that behaviour to the rest of humankind. Even China's one-child policy has not managed to control population growth. For that to happen, it would seem that we need to increase the world standard of living to the american/european level. Given the consumption footprint that would mean, it is highly questionable if we will ever achieve that. Not impossible, just questionable. I still think Mad Max is more likely.
    - eru 11y ago
      Yes, China's one-child policy didn't seem to make too much of a difference, but that's because Chinese fertility rates fell even in areas that didn't enforce the one-child policy. The consumption footprint is easily achievable---the limiting factor is energy burned per day. Nuclear (or cheap solar) can change that.