Thought experiment

[biffvernon]

So perhaps it's best not too waste too much effort on prediction, but rather work to maximise probability of happy outcomes.

[AndySir]

We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.

[the_lyniezian]

Let's imagine that by some miracle the world's political leaders get together to agree a much more equitable distribution of wealth, both within countries and internationally. As a result, 95% of the population have access to physical security, sufficient food, clean water and sanitation, basic healthcare and education. And as a result of that improvement in living standards, most of them can now expect to live into their 70s. Let's also assume another miracle occurs: as a result of their improved living standards, from now on people choose only to have 2 children (on average).

What happens next?

My suggestion is that not only would the human race still be heading for an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe like nothing in our previous history, but that we would end up on course for a worse catastrophe than the one we're currently heading for. Why? Because people have children, in general, in their 20s or early 30s at the latest. And in most of the world, there are far more young people than old - it is only in some parts of the old developed world that we have a glut of elderly people and "not enough" people being born. And that means, if all other things were equal, that the population would continue growing until the first of the 2-kids-on-average generation started dying - i.e. not until the end of this century.

It looks to me as if this scenario would end up worse precisely because it would delay the start of the inevitable die-off and cause the peak level of human population to be higher. As things stand, the population will peak earlier because the large number of people at the bottom the "global wealth pyramid" will run out off food, security and access to decent healthcare long before the majority in the more developed parts of the world suffer this fate.

It seems to me that even though for most of human history it has been the case that a greater amount of equality (internationally) was a pre-requisite to solving the Big Problems humans face, the very fact that we're now so close to an inevitable catastrophe has turned this situation on its head. It is too late for that strategy to be part of the solution, and were it to be implemented it would actually end up making the ecological problems even worse.

Thoughts?

I'm interested both in whether or not people agree with this theory, and what the implications of it are in terms of policy and what is ethically acceptable in this situation.

It would be worse if we in the developed world are not prepared to resort to a lower impact on resources and the environment, something I fear I am myself not even doing. Part of such a reduction impact could be down to plain old bad habits that do not affect our true standard of living at all, some of which are down to the fact that our "standard of living" is far higher than what is either necessary or sustainable. I also believe that until we solve this problem, we have no right to complain about the birth rates or need to improve the lot of the extremely poor in other parts of the world.

[featherstick]

Yes, basically. I do not believe 9.2 billion humans can be alive in 2050 without the vast majority of those people living in absolute misery.

I assume that conclusion is based on extensive study and knowledge of crop yields, land use, the effect of climate change on the local climates of the major agricultural areas, solid economic models that span the next hundred years and an estimate of resource depletion rates and energy use over the same time scale. Plus being able to predict the path of technological progress over the next hundred years and the impact of that on all of the above.

I mean, you're not just looking at two trees here and going 'Thon's the biggest'.

Are you?

Making predicitions is tricky - particularly about the future.

I hope so too, it would be unpleasant to think that this is driven by a rich middle-aged white man's worry about poor brown people having too many babies, which has been the basis of eugenics for a long time. The solution to the "absolute misery" UE predicts is contained in the last line of my post about addressing some of the absurd, offensive and deadly inequalities in our current system.

[the_lyniezian]

I hope so too, it would be unpleasant to think that this is driven by a rich middle-aged white man's worry about poor brown people having too many babies, which has been the basis of eugenics for a long time. The solution to the "absolute misery" UE predicts is contained in the last line of my post about addressing some of the absurd, offensive and deadly inequalities in our current system.

I would hesitate to imply racism or say anything about birth rates (in the latter case, because it seems as if discusing the birth rate is put to one side in UE's latest argument). It does however seem unfortunate that so many of these arguments have to do with the idea that basically poor people miles away aren't dying off fast enough, when really they aren't the nub of the problem. When someone in the rich world has on average an ecological footprint several times these people, and wants for few basic necessities.

I would propose a counter thought experiment. If it were the people of somewhere like Britain who were desperately poor and likely facing famine, drought and disease on a regular basis, would someone living in this country- especially someone most vulnerable to such- have the same opinion as the likes of the OP? I doubt it.

[Little John]

I hope so too, it would be unpleasant to think that this is driven by a rich middle-aged white man's worry about poor brown people having too many babies, which has been the basis of eugenics for a long time. The solution to the "absolute misery" UE predicts is contained in the last line of my post about addressing some of the absurd, offensive and deadly inequalities in our current system.

I would hesitate to imply racism or say anything about birth rates (in the latter case, because it seems as if discusing the birth rate is put to one side in UE's latest argument). It does however seem unfortunate that so many of these arguments have to do with the idea that basically poor people miles away aren't dying off fast enough, when really they aren't the nub of the problem. When someone in the rich world has on average an ecological footprint several times these people, and wants for few basic necessities.

I would propose a counter thought experiment. If it were the people of somewhere like Britain who were desperately poor and likely facing famine, drought and disease on a regular basis, would someone living in this country- especially someone most vulnerable to such- have the same opinion as the likes of the OP? I doubt it.

Except that the above is not what UE has suggested. He has simply pointed out that:

A.) The capacity of the world to distribute resources equitably is more or less logistically/politically impossible and so there is little point in continuing to pretend otherwise and, instead, we should set about ensuring our own food security in earnest in anticipation of the crisis that is coming our way as well as the rest of the world's.

Or

B.) Even if such an equitable allocation of resource were logistically/politically possible, we are already so far into overshoot as a species that allocating resources more equitably now is simply too late in the day to do anything other than to merely delay slightly the inevitable die off to come.

[Little John]

Yes, basically. I do not believe 9.2 billion humans can be alive in 2050 without the vast majority of those people living in absolute misery.

I assume that conclusion is based on extensive study and knowledge of crop yields, land use, the effect of climate change on the local climates of the major agricultural areas, solid economic models that span the next hundred years and an estimate of resource depletion rates and energy use over the same time scale. Plus being able to predict the path of technological progress over the next hundred years and the impact of that on all of the above.

I mean, you're not just looking at two trees here and going 'Thon's the biggest'.

Are you?

Making predicitions is tricky - particularly about the future.

I hope so too, it would be unpleasant to think that this is driven by a rich middle-aged white man's worry about poor brown people having too many babies, which has been the basis of eugenics for a long time. The solution to the "absolute misery" UE predicts is contained in the last line of my post about addressing some of the absurd, offensive and deadly inequalities in our current system.

Enough with the "poor brown people" and "rich white middle class" racism slurs. UE's point, whether you agree or not, is simply that there are too many people in the world already and that any global allocation of resources, no matter how equitable, will not do anything other than delay the inevitable die off to come. You may, perfectly reasonably, disagree with that analysis. In which case, other solutions obviously come into play, including ones involving more equitable allocation of existing resources. However, if one accepts that we are already significantly into overshoot, then UE's point is simply about how that practically pans out and has got nothing all to do with white middle class panic or racist fears of "brown people" and it's cheap to imply that it does.

[AndySir]

A.) The capacity of the world to distribute resources equitably is more or less logistically/politically impossible and so there is little point in continuing to pretend otherwise and, instead, we should set about ensuring our own food security in earnest in anticipation of the crisis that is coming our way as well as the rest of the world's.

Or

B.) Even if such an equitable allocation of resource were logistically/politically possible, we are already so far into overshoot as a species that allocating resources more equitably now is simply too late in the day to do anything other than to merely delay slightly the inevitable die off to come.

Happily the general ethics of this forum toward localised food production and permaculture are likely to contribute towards both our own security and the equitable distribution of resources. A fair whack of $1 world's insecurity and hunger comes from being forced into providing our coffee and biofuels. You can upgrade to the $2 world if you can supply us with the infamous plastic pumpkins.

To change the world you need only change yourself - then your part is complete.

ETA: Of course this does bring up a similar argument with unsustainable economies: is it better for the sweatshop economies to collapse now as a conscious decision and let that suffering and starvation happen now or wait for it to collapse on it's own and blame it on forces out of our control. I suppose, since I criticized UE for the lack of intellectual honesty on this score, I must admit the possibility of transition from a slave economy to an independent one as well.

[biffvernon]

A.) The capacity of the world to distribute resources equitably is more or less logistically/politically impossible and so there is little point in continuing to pretend otherwise and, instead, we should set about ensuring our own food security in earnest in anticipation of the crisis that is coming our way as well as the rest of the world's.

Or

B.) Even if such an equitable allocation of resource were logistically/politically possible, we are already so far into overshoot as a species that allocating resources more equitably now is simply too late in the day to do anything other than to merely delay slightly the inevitable die off to come.

I think your point A is wrong, and your 'Even if' in point B acknowledges the possibility that it is wrong. The rest of B is a bit of a generalised hand wave. A great number of the global population are not into overshoot and the rest of us know how to undershoot. We just have to alter our behaviour. We could all end up happier as a result. Part of the problem is all the people shouting "It can't be done!".

[UndercoverElephant]

A.) The capacity of the world to distribute resources equitably is more or less logistically/politically impossible and so there is little point in continuing to pretend otherwise and, instead, we should set about ensuring our own food security in earnest in anticipation of the crisis that is coming our way as well as the rest of the world's.

Or

B.) Even if such an equitable allocation of resource were logistically/politically possible, we are already so far into overshoot as a species that allocating resources more equitably now is simply too late in the day to do anything other than to merely delay slightly the inevitable die off to come.

I think your point A is wrong, and your 'Even if' in point B acknowledges the possibility that it is wrong. The rest of B is a bit of a generalised hand wave. A great number of the global population are not into overshoot and the rest of us know how to undershoot. We just have to alter our behaviour. We could all end up happier as a result.

No. If the population is in overshoot then the whole population is in overshoot. You can't say that the first couple of million aren't in overshoot just because if there were only 2 million then those 2 million wouldn't be in overshoot.

Part of the problem is all the people shouting "It can't be done!".

No, part of the problem is the people who continue propping up belief in things that can't be done because that's easier than facing up to the alternatives.

[jonny2mad]

Darwinian pressures seem not to have worked like that. Many species, when faced with increased competition for scarce resources, will increase their reproductive rate, not decrease it. It's a numbers game. If you can manage to throw more mud against the wall than your competitor, you will end up with more of your mud on that wall than your competitor. When push comes to shove, quantity often beats quality. And it's no use berating mankind for this breeding tendency. It's how we are wired.

steve you get it
Humanity doesnt think as a collective of all humanity, no animal species thinks like that it would go against how evolution works .

Animal species are in conflict for resources not just with other species but within species, thats human history .

The problem with most people is they dont seem to know who they are, they are given this crazy disney view of the world well if that ever existed its about to really end hard .

I would say 99% of people who know about peak oil dont get it, they talk about some sort of world plan or not having kids when there isnt going to be a world plan and if there was the smart would cheat to put their near kin at a advantage

You've not explored symbiosis then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

yup you have some cases symbiotic relationships between animals and plant species , but you also have animal and plant species driving each other to extinction by being better in competition.

Humans have done this with other humaniod tribes even in quite recent history you wont find many tasmania aborigines. I think there still may be one pickled in one of the science museums in london but they are not walking about much.

I dont know how you guys can't see this sort of thing, even in the good times humans have been fighting over resources. Every land tree bit of grass on this planet has been fought over and the winner generally gets to keep it and the losing people doesn't .

I think we are pretty screwed up mentally and thats whats going to mean we are going to lose out big time in this bloody competition thats coming, but that won't change the underlying dynamic

[AndySir]

No. If the population is in overshoot then the whole population is in overshoot. You can't say that the first couple of million aren't in overshoot just because if there were only 2 million then those 2 million wouldn't be in overshoot.

Yes. Populations, resource consumption and availability are not globally homogenous. New Zealand, for example, is unlikely to experience a die off due to overpopulation since its population is stable and it's probably reasonable to assume it could sustain its population of 5 million or so in isolation.

Even climate change is likely to have markedly different effects on different regions. It makes little sense to talk about a global population crisis, except for the justification of rhetoric and propaganda. Rather like a war between nation states in Northern Europe being referred to as a World War.

(Edited for egregious confusion of it's and its before RC decides the die-off should start with me)

[Little John]

No. If the population is in overshoot then the whole population is in overshoot. You can't say that the first couple of million aren't in overshoot just because if there were only 2 million then those 2 million wouldn't be in overshoot.

Yes. Populations, resource consumption and availability are not globally homogenous. New Zealand, for example, is unlikely to experience a die off due to overpopulation since its population is stable and it's probably reasonable to assume it could sustain its population of 5 million or so in isolation.

Even climate change is likely to have markedly different effects on different regions. It makes little sense to talk about a global population crisis, except for the justification of rhetoric and propaganda. Rather like a war between nation states in Northern Europe being referred to as a World War.

(Edited for egregious confusion of it's and its before RC decides the die-off should start with me)

Places like New Zealand is in the unlikely and lucky position of having an already low population based on a geographically remote land mass. As such, it can't be used to validly extrapolate the likely outcomes of the coming crisis for the majority of the globe.

[UndercoverElephant]

It makes little sense to talk about a global population crisis, except for the justification of rhetoric and propaganda.

We have global population crisis. Just because there are few places where there is not (currently) a population crisis, it does not follow that this is not a global problem. At least...I don't really see any point, other than pointless point-scoring, of pointing out that the problem is far worse in some countries than it is in others. There's no point because everybody knows this. It is not a point of contention, and not really of any great interest apart from if we start talking about migration and laws in certain places to prevent it. In other words, New Zealand will only continue to not have a problem if it maintains the strict immigration controls already in place. The same goes for Australia and plenty of other places. Their response to this problem will be to send people back to where they came from, regardless of the consequences for those people, which may well be dire.

[AndySir]

We have global population crisis.

You have yet to show that, UE. Apart from your lickspittle, SteveCook it seems few are convinced that is the case. You have no evidence to back up the assertion that we are in overshoot, but assert it repeatedly with the confidence of a barroom philosopher. Is it any wonder people repeatedly suggest a hidden agenda when you bring this stuff up?

As for SC himself, nobody extrapolated anything (Hey, isn't there a name for that kind of argument? Some kind of female relative?). It was merely pointed out that that resource constraints tend to be highly regional and there is no reason to think this will be anything but intensified in the case of a crisis. Globalisation would be the first casualty of any crisis.