excellent website on population

[UndercoverElephant]

This isn't an 'excellent website on population'. It just rehearses the tired and lazy idea that the number of people are what's important. It isn't. What's important is what those people actually do.

I've made this point several times on PowerSwitch before:

The question of 'carrying capacity' is almost always the wrong question. The actual number of people, whilst interesting is dwarfed in significance by what those people actually do - their behaviour in short.

NO! What you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from The Problem by focusing on some other aspect of the global crisis. We live in a world where there are grotesque inequalities, where we waste important resources we do not need to waste, and where we encourage people to buy things they don't need. All of these things are real problems, but underlying the lot of them is the overpopulation issue. The truth is that there are too many people on this planet who are all "doing the wrong thing" - or trying to. All of them, apart from a tiny minority of very wealthy people who already consume everything they want to, are trying to improve their standard of living. So you can't get away with saying "this isn't about population." Oh yes it is! It may be about a load of other things too, but so long as we continue to pretend that the population problem isn't real and doesn't multiply all the other problems, the whole debate is based on fantasy.

Carrying capacity is a useful term in biology, as most animal's behaviour is extremely limited in variability. It's not possible for one rabbit to use 100x as much resource as another rabbit. All rabbits behave, like rabbits. So the best way to describe the requirements is by the size of the population.

This logic doesn't hold for humans. Some humans do use 100x the resource of others. The UK could support 100 million people, 10 million people or just 1 million people

Sure, if people in the UK are reduced to living like people currently do in Uganda.

This really isn't the case. Remember 'impact' is population x behaviour and that population is minor factor when compared to behavior.

No, that's denialist propaganda.

You are trying to downplay the importance of population.

No, I really don't see this as a problem. We already grow dramatically more food than is needed to feed 7bn people well. The problems are to do will allocation and behaviour etc.

....in fact anything but population...

[clv101]

Presumably, though, you are able to conceive of a situation where behavior, alone, is insufficient.

It's not a binary, behaviour or population, problem. The problem is a product of the two. However, my point is that behaviour has a far greater weighting, a far larger impact than population. So much so that, given the degree of freedom over population is only a few billion, it becomes almost trivial next to behaviour. If the debate was over 7bn, or 70bn I'd start to think population was important, but seeing as there's no evidence suggesting population is likely go much over 9bn we need to refocus on behaviour.

To take an analogy, imagine you have three people locked in a room where there was enough food for four people; they would all get a bit fat. Add a fourth person and all that is required is that they change their behavior. Add a fifth person and, as long as the people are prepared to live on a subsistence diet, then they will all survive. However, add a sixth person and it really doesn't matter what changes to behavior are implemented,. There just isn't enough food to go around anymore.

To use your analogy, I'd suggest there's food for 7 people in the room. Of the three one is fat, eating (and consuming in other ways) enough for 5 people, one is more than fine, and one is starving. Adding a fourth or fifth person to room would spell disaster as the third guy is already starving. However, change the behaviour of the greedy guy and all five have ample.

Given all of the above, all you are really arguing here is that we have not yet reached the point at which behavioral changes cannot cope with increases in population size.

Absolutely.

However, for you to be able to make that argument, you must have some notional figure in your mind as to what that point is otherwise you would be logically unable to make the argument you have.

So what is it?

It'll be the point where the greediest amongst us aren't using an order of magnitude or two more than the folks with the skinniest consumption. Whilst their is still such incredible over consumption/waste, there's still room to grow through behaviour improvement. I can't pin an absolute number on it, but my hunch is that a further increase of 2bn, just 30% more than today can be accommodated.

[UndercoverElephant]

Presumably, though, you are able to conceive of a situation where behavior, alone, is insufficient.

It's not a binary, behaviour or population, problem. The problem is a product of the two. However, my point is that behaviour has a far greater weighting, a far larger impact than population. So much so that, given the degree of freedom over population is only a few billion, it becomes almost trivial next to behaviour. If the debate was over 7bn, or 70bn I'd start to think population was important, but seeing as there's no evidence suggesting population is likely go much over 9bn we need to refocus on behaviour.

To take an analogy, imagine you have three people locked in a room where there was enough food for four people; they would all get a bit fat. Add a fourth person and all that is required is that they change their behavior. Add a fifth person and, as long as the people are prepared to live on a subsistence diet, then they will all survive. However, add a sixth person and it really doesn't matter what changes to behavior are implemented,. There just isn't enough food to go around anymore.

To use your analogy, I'd suggest there's food for 7 people in the room.

He's already stipulated that there's only enough for four (to live healthily.)

As for "behaviour has a far greater weighting"....this doesn't mean anything. It's X * Y. Population * average consumption rate. There is no other "weighting". You're expressing it as (X*W1) * (X*W2), where W is weighting. What do you think these numbers W1 and W2 translate to in the real world? The answer is nothing. They do not need to appear in the equation at all. X * Y does the job all on its own.

[clv101]

NO! What you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from The Problem by focusing on some other aspect of the global crisis. We live in a world where there are grotesque inequalities, where we waste important resources we do not need to waste, and where we encourage people to buy things they don't need. All of these things are real problems, but underlying the lot of them is the overpopulation issue.

I don't agree with how you are framing it. I don't think population is the underlying problem. I think population only becomes a problem because of the behaviour problem.

You are trying to downplay the importance of population.

You bet I am! The reason I'm downplaying the importance of population is that it has a far smaller degree of freedom than behaviour. A factor or ~2, or just 30%, compared to an order of magnitude or two!

[clv101]

He's already stipulated that there's only enough for four (to live healthily.)

Not sure what you're saying, but that isn't what I mean.

[Little John]

Presumably, though, you are able to conceive of a situation where behavior, alone, is insufficient.

It's not a binary, behaviour or population, problem. The problem is a product of the two. However, my point is that behaviour has a far greater weighting, a far larger impact than population. So much so that, given the degree of freedom over population is only a few billion, it becomes almost trivial next to behaviour. If the debate was over 7bn, or 70bn I'd start to think population was important, but seeing as there's no evidence suggesting population is likely go much over 9bn we need to refocus on behaviour.

To take an analogy, imagine you have three people locked in a room where there was enough food for four people; they would all get a bit fat. Add a fourth person and all that is required is that they change their behavior. Add a fifth person and, as long as the people are prepared to live on a subsistence diet, then they will all survive. However, add a sixth person and it really doesn't matter what changes to behavior are implemented,. There just isn't enough food to go around anymore.

To use your analogy, I'd suggest there's food for 7 people in the room. Of the three one is fat, eating (and consuming in other ways) enough for 5 people, one is more than fine, and one is starving. Adding a fourth or fifth person to room would spell disaster as the third guy is already starving. However, change the behaviour of the greedy guy and all five have ample.

Given all of the above, all you are really arguing here is that we have not yet reached the point at which behavioral changes cannot cope with increases in population size.

Absolutely.

However, for you to be able to make that argument, you must have some notional figure in your mind as to what that point is otherwise you would be logically unable to make the argument you have.

So what is it?

It'll be the point where the greediest amongst us aren't using an order of magnitude or two more than the folks with the skinniest consumption. Whilst their is still such incredible over consumption/waste, there's still room to grow through behaviour improvement. I can't pin an absolute number on it, but my hunch is that a further increase of 2bn, just 30% more than today can be accommodated.

There are a few things I would put to you here.

Firstly, our history shows that humans will always allocate resources inequitably if they get the chance. So, in order for your Utopian vision of equitable allocation of existing resources to take place, you would need a global socialist government. I see absolutely no sign of that emerging whatsoever.

Secondly, Even assuming we do manage to allocate resource more equitably, you are ignoring the fact that, as things stand, our current consumption of the world's biomass is already putting the earth's eco-systems under unsustainable pressure. And yet, your suggestion hat we could support another 2 or three billion is only going to increase that pressure yet further.

Finally, the central problem with your argument is based on how we have actually achieved the massive rise in food production (and commensurate rise in population) over the last century or two. Namely, via the mass consumption of hydrocarbons. As someone once said, "modern faming is little more than the turning of hydrocarbons into food". Well, as I'm sure you are aware, we have a little problem there don't we.

[UndercoverElephant]

NO! What you are doing is trying to deflect attention away from The Problem by focusing on some other aspect of the global crisis. We live in a world where there are grotesque inequalities, where we waste important resources we do not need to waste, and where we encourage people to buy things they don't need. All of these things are real problems, but underlying the lot of them is the overpopulation issue.

I don't agree with how you are framing it. I don't think population is the underlying problem. I think population only becomes a problem because of the behaviour problem.

I know you are resisting the way I am framing it. I suggest it is more a case that you don't like it rather than not agreeing with it, because I don't really understand why anyone can disagree with it (when they understand it, and I think you do.) I am deliberately "framing" it in such a way as to prevent anyone trying to downplay the importance of population and focus on a less troublesome aspect of the global crisis (like in equality or overconsumption in the developed world.)

The fundamental, underlying problem is that we have not (anywhere) accepted that there are absolute limits to growth in economic activity and population. What I'm not going to accept is the claim that we can solve this problem either by consuming less in the west or by attempting to raise the living standards of 2 billion poor people. It's too late and it probably wouldn't work anyway. This has been the policy of international aid agencies and most of the environmental movement for the last half century and it has been an abject failure. Now we have run out of time. Therefore the underlying problem really is overpopulation.

You are trying to downplay the importance of population.

You bet I am! The reason I'm downplaying the importance of population is that it has a far smaller degree of freedom than behaviour. A factor or ~2, or just 30%, compared to an order of magnitude or two!

It sounds like you are trying to say "there's a lot less we can actually do about the population problem." This is true, but unfortunately it doesn't make the problem go away.

[emordnilap]

I think both sides of this coin are right - and it's educational to read the two viewpoints.

Population is a problem; behaviour is a problem. Weighting the two is yet another problem.

[UndercoverElephant]

Presumably, though, you are able to conceive of a situation where behavior, alone, is insufficient.

It's not a binary, behaviour or population, problem. The problem is a product of the two. However, my point is that behaviour has a far greater weighting, a far larger impact than population. So much so that, given the degree of freedom over population is only a few billion, it becomes almost trivial next to behaviour. If the debate was over 7bn, or 70bn I'd start to think population was important, but seeing as there's no evidence suggesting population is likely go much over 9bn we need to refocus on behaviour.

To take an analogy, imagine you have three people locked in a room where there was enough food for four people; they would all get a bit fat. Add a fourth person and all that is required is that they change their behavior. Add a fifth person and, as long as the people are prepared to live on a subsistence diet, then they will all survive. However, add a sixth person and it really doesn't matter what changes to behavior are implemented,. There just isn't enough food to go around anymore.

To use your analogy, I'd suggest there's food for 7 people in the room. Of the three one is fat, eating (and consuming in other ways) enough for 5 people, one is more than fine, and one is starving. Adding a fourth or fifth person to room would spell disaster as the third guy is already starving. However, change the behaviour of the greedy guy and all five have ample.

Given all of the above, all you are really arguing here is that we have not yet reached the point at which behavioral changes cannot cope with increases in population size.

Absolutely.

However, for you to be able to make that argument, you must have some notional figure in your mind as to what that point is otherwise you would be logically unable to make the argument you have.

So what is it?

It'll be the point where the greediest amongst us aren't using an order of magnitude or two more than the folks with the skinniest consumption. Whilst their is still such incredible over consumption/waste, there's still room to grow through behaviour improvement. I can't pin an absolute number on it, but my hunch is that a further increase of 2bn, just 30% more than today can be accommodated.

There are a few things I would put to you here.

Firstly, our history shows that humans will always allocate resources inequitably if they get the chance. So, in order for your Utopian vision of equitable allocation of existing resources to take place, you would need a global socialist government. I see absolutely no sign of that emerging whatsoever.

Secondly, Even assuming we do manage to allocate resource more equitably, you are ignoring the fact that, as things stand, our current consumption of the world's biomass is already putting the earth's eco-systems under unsustainable pressure. And yet, your suggestion hat we could support another 2 or three billion is only going to increase that pressure yet further.

Finally, the central problem with your argument is based on how we have actually achieved the massive rise in food production (and commensurate rise in population) over the last century or two. Namely, via the mass consumption of hydrocarbons. As someone once said, "modern faming is little more than the turning of hydrocarbons into food". Well, as I'm sure you are aware, we have a little problem there don't we.

I'd expand your second point even further by pointing out that even if everybody currently below the age when people normally start families (20) only have two children each, and their children only have two children each, we're still heading towards 10 or 11 billion before reaching a stable population level. In the fantasy account of the future, where everybody's living standards can improve, most of those 11 billion people will also expect to live into their 70s.

The extent to which the maths fails to add up is quite incredible.

[Little John]

I think both sides of this coin are right - and it's educational to read the two viewpoints.

Population is a problem; behaviour is a problem. Weighting the two is yet another problem.

Population is, ultimately, though, the central problem

Consider the following by way of illustration of the above;

People can behave as badly as they like as long as there are few enough of them

Population cannot rise indefinitely no matter how well people behave.

What CV is basically arguing is that in order for us to reach the absolute limits of the carrying capacity of this planet to support us, all we need to do, apparently, is to behave better.

A LOT better. Well bugger me, who'd have thought it?

However, quite apart from the completely unrealistic appraisal of human nature and complete ignorance of human history that CV's argument is based on, it is a complete insanity to suggest that we should push our population and the eco-system on which it depends to the very limits of endurance simply because we can. Our planet's biological systems are already showing significant signs of stress as it is.

[clv101]

I'm out for the rest of the afternoon so will have to come back to this later.

Population cannot rise indefinitely no matter how well people behave.

I will just comment here that I'm not talking about indefinite rise - Only the plausible rise between 7 and 9bn. That +30%, seems trivial to me given the order of magnitude degree of freedom in behaviour.

Also note I think it likely we'll overshoot and collapse to 1-4bn people within the next century or so. I just don't don't think there's any physical law that say it has to be so and a focus on behaviour, where there is huge opportunity to have impact is far more sensible than focusing on the blunt, 1st order idea of population.

[hodson2k9]

This isn't an 'excellent website on population'. It just rehearses the tired and lazy idea that the number of people are what's important. It isn't. What's important is what those people actually do.

I've made this point several times on PowerSwitch before:

The question of 'carrying capacity' is almost always the wrong question. The actual number of people, whilst interesting is dwarfed in significance by what those people actually do - their behaviour in short.

Carrying capacity is a useful term in biology, as most animal's behaviour is extremely limited in variability. It's not possible for one rabbit to use 100x as much resource as another rabbit. All rabbits behave, like rabbits. So the best way to describe the requirements is by the size of the population.

This logic doesn't hold for humans. Some humans do use 100x the resource of others. The UK could support 100 million people, 10 million people or just 1 million people - depending on behaviour.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 285#202285

The only way to tackle the problems you talk about is population control - and that means a 'cull' of the population.

This really isn't the case. Remember 'impact' is population x behaviour and that population is minor factor when compared to behavior. What is the degree of freedom of population? 3 bn, 6 bn, 9bn? Maybe a factor three at most? What's the degree of freedom of behaviour? It's many orders of magnitude between the richest and poorest people in the world. 9 bn people behaving in a low impact way, can be far more sustainable than 3 bn people behaving in a high impact way.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 844#173844

To me our basic, inevitable and recurring problem is the matching of food supply to population level.

No, I really don't see this as a problem. We already grow dramatically more food than is needed to feed 7bn people well. The problems are to do will allocation and behaviour etc. We feed an awful lot of it to animals for very small return, biofuels are having a significant impact now, the 'developed' world wastes huge amounts and access to what is available is grossly unequal.

Whether the global population is 5bn, 7bn or 9bn is a small issue compared to the magnitude of the above. The total food supply is ample, we're just hopeless at allocating it to the world's mouths.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 883#160883

Behaviour is a far more complex area to understand - which is why a lot of people ignore it, preferring to focus on the blunt idea of population. Disappointing for website using the strap line "A resource for those who are willing to think"!

You do make a good point clv, we do waste huge amounts, so a behaviour change will help (for a while). However do we waste enough to replace the food that is going to be lost due to the depletion of hydrocarbons? if yes for how long?

The way i see it is every year we will have less food than the last. So the food we currently waste will replace the loss food, but there will come a time when the food we currently waste will not be able to cover the yearly depletion of food.

From there i would excpect food that would normally feed 2 people to have to feed 3 people. However from there, there isn't really anything we can do, behaviour change or not there will not be enough food to go round (unless we reduce our population) therefore a die off will occur.

All a behaviour change can/will do is prolong the inevitable, so yes overpopulation is the main/central problem, without addressing that then any attempts to deal with the other problems (peak oil etc) will be futile.

[hodson2k9]

This isn't an 'excellent website on population'. It just rehearses the tired and lazy idea that the number of people are what's important. It isn't. What's important is what those people actually do.

I've made this point several times on PowerSwitch before:

The question of 'carrying capacity' is almost always the wrong question. The actual number of people, whilst interesting is dwarfed in significance by what those people actually do - their behaviour in short.

Carrying capacity is a useful term in biology, as most animal's behaviour is extremely limited in variability. It's not possible for one rabbit to use 100x as much resource as another rabbit. All rabbits behave, like rabbits. So the best way to describe the requirements is by the size of the population.

This logic doesn't hold for humans. Some humans do use 100x the resource of others. The UK could support 100 million people, 10 million people or just 1 million people - depending on behaviour.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 285#202285

This really isn't the case. Remember 'impact' is population x behaviour and that population is minor factor when compared to behavior. What is the degree of freedom of population? 3 bn, 6 bn, 9bn? Maybe a factor three at most? What's the degree of freedom of behaviour? It's many orders of magnitude between the richest and poorest people in the world. 9 bn people behaving in a low impact way, can be far more sustainable than 3 bn people behaving in a high impact way.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 844#173844

No, I really don't see this as a problem. We already grow dramatically more food than is needed to feed 7bn people well. The problems are to do will allocation and behaviour etc. We feed an awful lot of it to animals for very small return, biofuels are having a significant impact now, the 'developed' world wastes huge amounts and access to what is available is grossly unequal.

Whether the global population is 5bn, 7bn or 9bn is a small issue compared to the magnitude of the above. The total food supply is ample, we're just hopeless at allocating it to the world's mouths.
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 883#160883

Behaviour is a far more complex area to understand - which is why a lot of people ignore it, preferring to focus on the blunt idea of population. Disappointing for website using the strap line "A resource for those who are willing to think"!

You do make a good point clv, we do waste huge amounts, so a behaviour change will help (for a while). However do we waste enough to replace the food that is going to be lost? if yes for how long?

The way i see it is every year we will have less food than the last. So the food we currently waste will replace the loss food, but there will come a time when the food we currently waste will not be able to cover the yearly depletion of food.

From there i would excpect food that would normally feed 2 people to have to feed 3 people. However from there, there isn't really anything we can do, behaviour change or not there will not be enough food to go round, therefore a die off will occur. All a behaviour change can/will do is prolong the inevitable, so really population is the problem.

I would just like to add, the above is not how i expect it to play out. IMO even while there is ample food to go around unless you can afford it you will starve (alot like now only on a much larger scale). I certainly don't expect food to be shared out equally anyway.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm out for the rest of the afternoon so will have to come back to this later.

Population cannot rise indefinitely no matter how well people behave.

I will just comment here that I'm not talking about indefinite rise - Only the plausible rise between 7 and 9bn. That +30%, seems trivial to me given the order of magnitude degree of freedom in behaviour.

Also note I think it likely we'll overshoot and collapse to 1-4bn people within the next century or so. I just don't don't think there's any physical law that say it has to be so and a focus on behaviour, where there is huge opportunity to have impact is far more sensible than focusing on the blunt, 1st order idea of population.

One behaviour above all others has the biggest impact: how many children you produce.

[kurtdahl]

I am the author of the website www.populationelephant.com - so thanks for all of the attention. As with most activists dealing with overpopulation, I am usually ignored - but traffic quadrupled yesterday due to this forum. Thanks!

As to the heart of this discussion - the false dichotomy between population and consumption - I've never understood it. It seems obvious we have to do both.

Yes, we can feed the 7 billion now - and we do. Now. But how can we feed even 3 billion in a post-carbon, climate changed world? All the nice little thoughts of transitions towns, permaculture, simple living will not help support the 10 million people living on Manhattan Island or in London? Would you like to have a million or so show up at the gates to Organicville transitionplace?