excellent website on population

[Little John]

And yet, you and others would argue that we should attempt to put the earth''s systems under even more strain by aiming for 9 billion?

Actually, I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I'm trying to get some perspective as I don't think it's as black and white as the die-offers are saying.

Anyway, Cubans, Schmoobans. Pick any nationality that uses half or less per capita resources of Americans and 9 billion is possible. Not desirable, note.

We shouldn't 'aim' for population growth but we should, most definitely, absolutely, limit consumption.

The central point I have put on a number of occasions in this thread about how our biological systems are already under massive strain with the current population as it stands has still not been addressed. It should also be noted, that, ironically, the use of hydrocarbons actually probably mitigates against that strain since it allows us to grow more for less. Without hydrocarbons, the lowering of production will mean we will need even more land to achieve the same outputs.

More land that does not exist.

[clv101]

OK were not really getting anyway are we, were have to agree to dis-agree, at least you have admitted that population is a problem as well.

Indeed, a trivial problem compared to consumption.

To be fair though this debate is rather pointless. You know and i know that there is going to be a die-off so the population levels will reduce anyway so were never know who was correct. And even if you are right your argument depends on all resources being shared equally on a global scale, thats not going to happen anyway so imo your argument is invalid.

I don't think the debate is pointless or my argument invalid. I'm certainly not arguing for equality - just a slight flattening of the curve. Busting America back to European consumption levels over a generation or two isn't equality but does free up a hell of a lot of space of people at the other end of the consumption distribution.

As I said above, I think we'll fail and, will see a die-off. But it won't be because people didn't recognise and act on population (the degree of freedom is just too small). Instead it'll be because a few hundred million of us, a billion at most, continued to consume far far too much.

[Little John]

Oh, we probably can't stop it. But what we can do is to stop bullshitting ourselves and see the problem for what it is. It may make no difference at all. But, if we don't face up to the problem and see it for what it is, then we will be guaranteed to make no difference.

Exaclty! We probably can't stop the 30% rise, half of the mothers to be are already here. So we need to stop getting all worked up about the absolute number of people and concentrate on what really matters, what they actually do with their lives. Also note that the 30% increase to 9bn doesn't increase world consumption by anything like 30% as most of these extra people are arriving into areas with relatively low consumption.

you are confusing short term fixes with long term solutions. Whilst they are both necessary within their own time frames, I repeat;

People can behave as badly as they like if there are few enough of them. However, it won't make any difference how well people behave if there are too many of them.

What you are proposing is that we should merrily march right up to the edge of the cliff and only then consider the danger of our position. Indeed, it's worse than that. What you are proposing is akin to us risking, "Wylie Coyote" style, running right off the edge and only discovering we have no footing when it is already too late. Our biosphere is already showing significant signs of strains with our existing populations. You have repeatedly failed to address this point throughout this thread.

Why is that?

[clv101]

People can behave as badly as they like if there are few enough of them. However, it won't make any difference how well people behave if there are too many of them.

Indeed, but what you're forgetting is the relative weightings!

Impacts = population (+/- 30%) × consumption (×/÷ 10)

Population just doesn't change by much - it is what it is. Consumption has a huge degree of freedom.

[Little John]

People can behave as badly as they like if there are few enough of them. However, it won't make any difference how well people behave if there are too many of them.

Indeed, but what you're forgetting is the relative weightings!

Impacts = population (+/- 30%) x consumption (x/÷ 10)

Population just doesn't change by much - it is what it is. Consumption has a huge degree of freedom.

Your maths is nonsense.

[clv101]

Your maths is nonsense.

How so? It's a product of the two, with far greater degree of freedom on consumption.

[Little John]

Your maths is nonsense.

How so? It's a product of the two, with far greater degree of freedom on consumption.

Because, to be blunt, those degrees of freedom are based on variables you have plucked out of your arse.

Sorry

[clv101]

Your maths is nonsense.

How so? It's a product of the two, with far greater degree of freedom on consumption.

Because, to be blunt, those degrees of freedom are based on variables you have plucked out of your arse.

Sorry

The 30% is the increase from 7 to 9bn and the order of magnitude on consumption is what we see in the world today? What degrees of freedom would you use?

[emordnilap]

It should also be noted, that, ironically, the use of hydrocarbons actually probably mitigates against that strain since it allows us to grow more for less. Without hydrocarbons, the lowering of production will mean we will need even more land to achieve the same outputs.

It's contestable - certainly fewer bodies are required to produce food under western notion of an agricultural system.

As others have stated, gardening is far more productive.

[Keela]

It's already straining under our activities as it is.

But isn't that his point? That it wouldn't be straining at all if we all lived on the resources of, say, a Cuban?

As I said, though, I think you're both arguing the toss of the same coin - which side is shinier?

Indeed. It's not straining because there are 7bn of us, it's straining because there are hundreds of millions of us consuming an order of magnitude more that the rest. Given that fact, whether the total number varies by plus/minus 30% is trivial.

Remove the highest comsumers .... (okay not really possible, but imagine we have done so) and the remaining population will fill the now available niche. Only thing previously preventing them being there was competition, remove it and everybody's standard of living moves up a notch. Yay great... except now we're back to square one....

We all aspire to improving our living standards. So what the world's peoples should aspire to is fewer people - each living with a good living standard, and with population controls of some sort to prevent us all continually pushing the numbers up (and thereby increasing the call from some for all to decrease their standard of living).

Which is preferable fewer people and some life quality, or more people with a decreasing life quality. This is a global question.

Global population is an issue. Why be divisive over which of us should restrict our populations more? Surely each population in each area should be aiming for some sort of balance within their area..... then each area can choose how the NUMBERS x LIFESTYLE balance should work out for them.

Hmm sounds like I'm recommending closing borders... I'm not. Just making comment.

[UndercoverElephant]

But isn't that his point? That it wouldn't be straining at all if we all lived on the resources of, say, a Cuban?

As I said, though, I think you're both arguing the toss of the same coin - which side is shinier?

Indeed. It's not straining because there are 7bn of us, it's straining because there are hundreds of millions of us consuming an order of magnitude more that the rest. Given that fact, whether the total number varies by plus/minus 30% is trivial.

Remove the highest comsumers .... (okay not really possible, but imagine we have done so) and the remaining population will fill the now available niche. Only thing previously preventing them being there was competition, remove it and everybody's standard of living moves up a notch. Yay great... except now we're back to square one....

Yes.

And I might add that the response of people like CLV to this situation - which they see has positive, humanistic and hopeful, is what actually drives the final nail into the coffin of humanity for people like Steve and myself. Because of the refusal to acknowledge the realities of the population problem, everything else we do is rendered pointless.

[clv101]

Remove the highest comsumers .... (okay not really possible, but imagine we have done so) and the remaining population will fill the now available niche. Only thing previously preventing them being there was competition, remove it and everybody's standard of living moves up a notch. Yay great... except now we're back to square one....

No we're not back at square one - no one is projecting population will keep rising. We know what reliably controls birth rates:

Educate women and provide good perinatal and child health care and security in old age. Given these conditions fertility rates plummet to just below replacement level. Iran is one of the most dramatic examples.

It only takes a bit of redistribution from the highest to the lowest, and a stable population is quite possible. 9bn seems a likely place to stop. Providing the needs of 9bn people can be done, whilst improving the lot of the lowest billion (so populations stabilise).

[clv101]

And I might add that the response of people like CLV to this situation - which they see has positive, humanistic and hopeful, is what actually drives the final nail into the coffin of humanity for people like Steve and myself. Because of the refusal to acknowledge the realities of the population problem, everything else we do is rendered pointless.

I don't see how recognising the realities as you see them regarding population changes anything? So, leaving aside consumption for a minute, how can we address the current situation by only focusing on population? It seem to me that population just doesn't have enough impact to make a significant difference - whereas behaviour/consumption does.

[UndercoverElephant]

And I might add that the response of people like CLV to this situation - which they see has positive, humanistic and hopeful, is what actually drives the final nail into the coffin of humanity for people like Steve and myself. Because of the refusal to acknowledge the realities of the population problem, everything else we do is rendered pointless.

I don't see how recognising the realities as you see them regarding population changes anything?

It changes the debate from fantasy to reality. How much more important does it get than that?

Recognising this reality changes all the debates about politics and economics just as significantly as peak oil does. Maybe even more so.

So, leaving aside consumption for a minute, how can we address the current situation by only focusing on population?

Has anybody suggested what we focus only on population?

It seem to me that population just doesn't have enough impact to make a significant difference - whereas behaviour/consumption does.

It has more impact than all the other factors. Steve summarised it well when he pointed out that a small number of humans can behave as unsustainably as they like without it mattering but that there is an absolute limit to how many humans can live on this planet, regardless of how sustainably they behave. The relationship between these two factors is therefore precisely the reverse of what you are arguing:

Changes is behaviour/consumption without action on population still leads us straight over the edge of the cliff, it just takes longer to get there and the cliff is higher.

On the other hand, a control/reduction of the population is the only thing which can allow sustainable levels of consumption. It's the only thing that can allow average living standards to be maintained (or significantly slow their decline.)

And on top of that, taking action to reduce population growth now also reduces the net suffering. What is worse, coercing somebody into having only one child, or allowing them to have three children, two of which are going to die early and horribly?

[emordnilap]

OK. There are numerous crises facing humanity, two of which - (over)population and (over)consumption by a few - seem to be the dominating 'sides' in the argument.

Let's just assume for the time being they're of equal importance. The debate otherwise goes down a blind alley.

What's to do about either of them (choose the one you prefer)? And how?