How Many People Can the World Really Hold?

[Tarrel]

There is a planning movement in the US known as "Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs)" - basically a design philosophy of building living spaces that are compact enough to walk round in order to access essential services, but arranged round a public transport node for access to work / the city.

Many of our traditional suburbs are designed this way. I think the challenge is to avoid the public transport "supply" to these settlements being continuously eroded by competition from private car travel. I think a lot can be done by making "software" changes to the way we live, not necessarily hard changes to the infrastructure.

Examples:
- Secondary schools are "specialised", encouraging kids to be taken by car to the appropriate type of school rather than going to the local one under their own steam.
- Planning regulations allow large, remote shopping facilities rather than those close to peoples' homes.
- Community services (e.g. health visitors) are now organised into fewer, more centralised hubs, requiring car travel to the households they visit, rather than being distributed into the communities as they used to be. (My wife experienced this first hand as a health visitor during the 2000 fuel protests).

All of this can be changed practically overnight, through changes in policy ("software upgrade"), with no need for major infrastructure changes.

The types of suburban development that bother me most are the (fairly recent) dense, urban developments in the middle of nowhere, with few local services and insufficient public transport to connect them to the town. These are very car (and therefore oil) dependent, and they don't have the scope for self-sufficiency (no gardens to grow things, etc).

All the above is, of course, "because we could". Until recently, the cost (Financial, environmental, or otherwise) of doing things this way has just not been on the radar.

[RenewableCandy]

- Secondary schools are "specialised", encouraging kids to be taken by car to the appropriate type of school rather than going to the local one under their own steam.

Quite. I've always thought this was fecking ridiculous.

[Tarrel]

- Secondary schools are "specialised", encouraging kids to be taken by car to the appropriate type of school rather than going to the local one under their own steam.

Quite. I've always thought this was fecking ridiculous.

Yep, but unfortunately it doesn't seem quite so ridiculous if you look at it through the mindset of being able to go where you want, when you want, in relative comfort, with no effort and comparatively cheaply (i.e fossil-fuel powered personal car transport).

Even when people have to sit and suffer in traffic, the typical reaction is that the roads are not up to the job, or we need more investment, or "it would be fine if it wasn't for all the mums on school runs / commuters / white van men / trucks / clueless old people / women drivers" (delete as applicable).

"You're not IN traffic. You ARE traffic".

[RenewableCandy]

But there's more to it than that: the walk to school used to get my brain up-and-going in the morning: a car ride would have done the opposite.

[lightbulblauren]

Hi, Im lauren and I'm a student at the university of Gloucestershire, studying english language and psychology so therefore the very nature of human, what makes us human and our lifestyle is very much of interest to me. Overpopulation is clearly a an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of how we use and plan to continue the use of the planets resources, however i agree with some of the comments that the way we treat our bodies is not always in a way that we desire to live a long life, drugs, smoking bieng unfit. but as im starting research in this area and my knowledge is limited, is overpopulation a bigger issue than how we use our resources, or do the two come hand in hand?

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi, Im lauren and I'm a student at the university of Gloucestershire, studying english language and psychology so therefore the very nature of human, what makes us human and our lifestyle is very much of interest to me. Overpopulation is clearly a an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of how we use and plan to continue the use of the planets resources, however i agree with some of the comments that the way we treat our bodies is not always in a way that we desire to live a long life, drugs, smoking bieng unfit. but as im starting research in this area and my knowledge is limited, is overpopulation a bigger issue than how we use our resources, or do the two come hand in hand?

Hi Lauren,

That question has been debated in great detail on this website, and I think the closest thing we have to a consensus is that they're both critically important. It's no use people in the western world consuming less if people everywhere else just consume extra instead. And nothing we do to try to solve our biggest ecological problems have any chance of succeeding unless we face up to the fact that we are already well into "overshoot".

I'm afraid the sad reality is that when you take the demographics into account - that is when you consider how many of the 7+ billion humans currently alive are still younger than 30 - and then you think of how many children they are planning/hoping to raise...it's too late to avoid a catastrophe. Way too late.

Geoff

[emordnilap]

Hi Lauren

There is a dichotomy on this site re the population/consumption issue (which probably means the argument is more heated elsewhere on the web ). It's not a "population OR consumption" issue, as UE rightly implies. You can't consider one without the other.

There are easily enough resources to feed, clothe and house 7 billion people easily. But capitalism - as we know it - doesn't allow it.

There a probably enough resources to feed, clothe and house many more than 7 billion: I don't know what the limit is, though there will be one.

Until we get rid of capitalism as we know it, we won't feed, clothe and house the 7 billion and climbing we have; thus it's contentious - some people get incredibly upset! - to suggest we can feed more. Take away inequality - and many other of the isms - and we can definitely feed more. But if you don't tackle the daddy of isms, we've no chance. It's a paradigm issue.

[clv101]

Lauren, here's a long discussion we had on this topic a few months ago:
http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20617

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Hi Lauren
There are easily enough resources to feed, clothe and house 7 billion people easily. But capitalism - as we know it - doesn't allow it.

I think that without capitalism we wouldn't have the resources to feed that we currently feed.

The profit motive kept more Americans fat than North Koreans.

[emordnilap]

Hi Lauren
There are easily enough resources to feed, clothe and house 7 billion people easily. But capitalism - as we know it - doesn't allow it.

I think that without capitalism we wouldn't have the resources to feed that we currently feed.

The profit motive kept more Americans fat than North Koreans.

Capitalism as we know it.

[Little John]

Hi Lauren
There are easily enough resources to feed, clothe and house 7 billion people easily. But capitalism - as we know it - doesn't allow it.

I think that without capitalism we wouldn't have the resources to feed that we currently feed.

The profit motive kept more Americans fat than North Koreans.

It is indeed true that capitalism has brought us to the precipice of ecological and civilisational catastrophe far more efficiently and swiftly than any other system of human organisation managed to do previously. In other words, it is precisely because of capitalism's capacity to efficiently hoover up non renewable resources and turn them into food and other consumables that has led so swiftly to a world of 7 billion humans with their backs about to be pressed firmly against the wall of peak resources.

Hardly something to be proud of, I would suggest.

[vtsnowedin]

Until we get rid of capitalism as we know it, we won't feed, clothe and house the 7 billion and climbing we have; thus it's contentious - some people get incredibly upset! - to suggest we can feed more. Take away inequality - and many other of the isms - and we can definitely feed more. But if you don't tackle the daddy of isms, we've no chance. It's a paradigm issue.

Just for frendly debate, no duels required.
Get rid of Capitalism and replace it with What? What other system has ever produced truth, justice and food for all? Or even a close proximity of a productive economy with surpluses of food and products? Where is the model you think the world should turn to that exists in the real world and not in the pages of some manifesto.

[emordnilap]

Get rid of Capitalism and replace it with What?

Capitalism as we know it.

"You're either for us or against us". Whatever happened to compromise?

Run a capitalist economy if you want, but do no harm.

[UndercoverElephant]

Until we get rid of capitalism as we know it, we won't feed, clothe and house the 7 billion and climbing we have; thus it's contentious - some people get incredibly upset! - to suggest we can feed more. Take away inequality - and many other of the isms - and we can definitely feed more. But if you don't tackle the daddy of isms, we've no chance. It's a paradigm issue.

Just for frendly debate, no duels required.
Get rid of Capitalism and replace it with What? What other system has ever produced truth, justice and food for all?

That's a pretty bizarre thing to write. You think capitalism has "produced truth and justice"????? REALLY? I'm sorry, but only an American could write drivel of this sort. Capitalism doesn't lead to justice. It leads to injustice. And as for truth...if that's what you are after then you'd better ask a philosopher, or a theologian. Capitalism has nothing to do with "truth".

Or even a close proximity of a productive economy with surpluses of food and products? Where is the model you think the world should turn to that exists in the real world and not in the pages of some manifesto.

So something has to already exist before you can consider implementing it? Where was the model for ancient Greek democracy before the Greeks implemented it?

You are just playing politics, VT. If you really want to talk about "models" then the model we must start from is the one delivered by science. Instead of just adopting the flawed assumptions that underpin the contemporary debates about political and economic systems, if we want to deal with reality then we must start with the cold, hard scientific facts. Only then should we start thinking about political and economic systems.

Fact #1: We live on a finite world with finite resources.

Fact #2: We are near the point where we cannot continue growing the human operation on this planet. It follows that we cannot have an economic system which can only function if limitless economic growth is possible.

So...even though there is no political/economic system anywhere in the world which starts by assuming zero or negative long-term economic growth, we have NO CHOICE but to try to implement one. Well...we do have a choice, and we won't even seriously think about implementing it any time soon. The die-off will inevitably start first.

[Little John]

Until we get rid of capitalism as we know it, we won't feed, clothe and house the 7 billion and climbing we have; thus it's contentious - some people get incredibly upset! - to suggest we can feed more. Take away inequality - and many other of the isms - and we can definitely feed more. But if you don't tackle the daddy of isms, we've no chance. It's a paradigm issue.

Just for frendly debate, no duels required.
Get rid of Capitalism and replace it with What? What other system has ever produced truth, justice and food for all?

That's a pretty bizarre thing to write. You think capitalism has "produced truth and justice"????? REALLY? I'm sorry, but only an American could write drivel of this sort. Capitalism doesn't lead to justice. It leads to injustice. And as for truth...if that's what you are after then you'd better ask a philosopher, or a theologian. Capitalism has nothing to do with "truth".

Or even a close proximity of a productive economy with surpluses of food and products? Where is the model you think the world should turn to that exists in the real world and not in the pages of some manifesto.

So something has to already exist before you can consider implementing it? Where was the model for ancient Greek democracy before the Greeks implemented it?

You are just playing politics, VT. If you really want to talk about "models" then the model we must start from is the one delivered by science. Instead of just adopting the flawed assumptions that underpin the contemporary debates about political and economic systems, if we want to deal with reality then we must start with the cold, hard scientific facts. Only then should we start thinking about political and economic systems.

Fact #1: We live on a finite world with finite resources.

Fact #2: We are near the point where we cannot continue growing the human operation on this planet. It follows that we cannot have an economic system which can only function if limitless economic growth is possible.

So...even though there is no political/economic system anywhere in the world which starts by assuming zero or negative long-term economic growth, we have NO CHOICE but to try to implement one. Well...we do have a choice, and we won't even seriously think about implementing it any time soon. The die-off will inevitably start first.

Excellent post UE and put far better than I could have. To be honest, I look at posts like this one from VT and I am basically struck dumb in terms of knowing where to even start with them given that they are so far off the radar of rational discourse.

Thank you.