World Population Now At 7 Billion & Growing Fast!

[Stars]

+1 This is the issue.

Without cheap oil (<$100bbl) we cannot operate the current mass totalitarian agriculture systems that currently exist.

The current 'feed the world' plans operated by Monsanto, Pioneer, Nestle etc are all based on making as much possible profit out of the existing hydrocarbon deposits. They have found a way to effectively turn oil into food for a massive profit, and they are doing it.

This is the issue until somebody presents reasonably how this might be avoided/ ameliorated / changed by tech in forty years or not actually be an issue..and then something else will be the issue. We have always lived with a continuous natural threat to our established way of living, and each time we have adapted.

It's so tiring to watch people drumming on and on the hypnotized, repeating chant about how doomed we are. If we are really actually doomed then obviously we are doomed and nothing can stop it, so lighten up, put the drum down and try to enjoy the ride into the abyss.

[catmandu]

Forget all the other problems the world faces. Population growth is the single biggest problem and will be our eventual downfall. Solve this and you solve almost every other environmental issue we have. Problem is that it's also the one problem that no one is willing to tackle.

It might be 100 years or more from now, but governments will only face this issue once it is far too late.

What we need is a good old non-nuclear World War or a huge disease to wipe out half the population.

There you go - you might not like to hear it, but you heard the truth here first.

[catmandu]

The human population will continue to expand for as long as there is surplus. The whole world is eating more on average than it did at a time of lower population. Seems the earth is handling us very well indeed.

The neo-Mathusians have been consistently wrong for decades and refuse to change.

Completely wrong - the problem with humans compared to other animals is that we can adapt quickly so when tuna runs out, we move onto salmon. when rice runs out we cut down a forest and grow more. All this has long-term consequences and at some point the consequences come back to hit us.

Never mind population growth - all it takes is the Chinese to all consume at western levels - it's already a problem now that Chinese are eating more meat and fish.

[Frugal Git]

Forget all the other problems the world faces. Population growth is the single biggest problem and will be our eventual downfall. Solve this and you solve almost every other environmental issue we have. Problem is that it's also the one problem that no one is willing to tackle.

It might be 100 years or more from now, but governments will only face this issue once it is far too late.

What we need is a good old non-nuclear World War or a huge disease to wipe out half the population.

There you go - you might not like to hear it, but you heard the truth here first.

I've been preaching this to anyone who'll listen since I was 5 years old (27 years ago sadly), visited India and saw a lad my age running through traffic trying to sell some candles batted away by my extended family. It shocked me massively that people could be so laissez faire about poverty.

But from that point to me the underlying problem was clear, so you're spot on.. Personally I think it's utterly irresponsible to have kids of your own if you can adopt - and that's the path I'll go down if they'd let me as a single bloke.

[Clueless_Academic]

Interesting comments by members....

Just wondered if anybody knows of any 'Computer Models' / simulations out there which can predict carrying capacity of Planet ??

Thinking back to 80's there used to be simple computer games on Specturm, BBC Mod B, pc's, etc., which simulated simple world's where resources (such as labour, money, defences, foodstuffs, etc.) had to be allocated to protect and grow the virtual communities.

Would you agree that resources, for humanity to survive are finite, or, mankind will soon 'substitute' our old technologies and practices for new one's such as genetic engineering, nano-tech, etc., which would allow humanity to continue growing in number..... read somewhere that scientists have developed synthetic meat, proteins, etc...... which could have potential to totally industrialise food production a la the 1973 film 'Soylent Green', which has plot line as follows....

"it depicts the investigation into the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green".

In the year 2022, the population has grown to forty million people in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it in present times is a rare and expensive commodity. Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation, including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates." The newest product is Soylent Green a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton." It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is--like most other food--in short supply, which often leads to food riots."

I'm not suggesting that foodstuffs would be produced in such an extreme manner, rather indicating that technology could soon exist to artificially feed an 'infinite' number of people...???

Question would then surely be defining Hunanities role / purpose in this utopian (or dystopian!) future........

Any thoughts.....??

[Rare Bear]

Interesting comments by members....

Just wondered if anybody knows of any 'Computer Models' / simulations out there which can predict carrying capacity of Planet ??

Thinking back to 80's there used to be simple computer games on Specturm, BBC Mod B, pc's, etc., which simulated simple world's where resources (such as labour, money, defences, foodstuffs, etc.) had to be allocated to protect and grow the virtual communities.

Would you agree that resources, for humanity to survive are finite, or, mankind will soon 'substitute' our old technologies and practices for new one's such as genetic engineering, nano-tech, etc., which would allow humanity to continue growing in number..... read somewhere that scientists have developed synthetic meat, proteins, etc...... which could have potential to totally industrialise food production a la the 1973 film 'Soylent Green', which has plot line as follows....

"it depicts the investigation into the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green".

In the year 2022, the population has grown to forty million people in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it in present times is a rare and expensive commodity. Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation, including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates." The newest product is Soylent Green — a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton." It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is--like most other food--in short supply, which often leads to food riots."

I'm not suggesting that foodstuffs would be produced in such an extreme manner, rather indicating that technology could soon exist to artificially feed an 'infinite' number of people...???

Question would then surely be defining Hunanities role / purpose in this utopian (or dystopian!) future........

Any thoughts.....??

Written by Harry Harrison as Make room make room

[Riedquat]

This is the issue until somebody presents reasonably how this might be avoided/ ameliorated / changed by tech in forty years or not actually be an issue..and then something else will be the issue. We have always lived with a continuous natural threat to our established way of living, and each time we have adapted.

It's so tiring to watch people drumming on and on the hypnotized, repeating chant about how doomed we are. If we are really actually doomed then obviously we are doomed and nothing can stop it, so lighten up, put the drum down and try to enjoy the ride into the abyss.

So your answer is to keep getting lucky or just to say sod it?

[JimDiGritz]

Written by Harry Harrison as Make room make room

My favourite author when I was a teenager... as people will probably know this was made into the film Soylent Green.

[MarkG]

Without cheap oil (<$100bbl) we cannot operate the current mass totalitarian agriculture systems that currently exist.

I remember some years ago reading about a research project in the 70s or 80s where they'd created a house that was self-sufficient in food and power and also produced enough methane to power a car for short trips. Obviously it wasn't a British-sized house, but I don't think it had the four acres per family that Britons could have if they eliminated planning restrictions.

I keep meaning to look through my junk and see if I still have the article.

[newbonic]

My favourite author when I was a teenager... as people will probably know this was made into the film Soylent Green.

Thought so - Is your full name James Bolivar Degriz? I loved those stories, and the West of Eden lizard people alternative history.

Back on topic though, we are surely going to have to fully embrace the science of genetic engineering, and try to put various religious lobbies' promotion of indefinite population growth behind us.

[newbonic]

..., but I don't think it had the four acres per family that Britons could have if they eliminated planning restrictions.

I presume you mean 4 acres if 2 or 3 of them are wind blasted swamp on the top of the pennines or some such?

[MarkG]

I presume you mean 4 acres if 2 or 3 of them are wind blasted swamp on the top of the pennines or some such?

Well, yeah, someone will have to live in Scotland .

[Rapid Descent]

Uh oh, the neo-malthusians are out in force I see. It's like watching Dad's Army again: we're all doomed, DOOMED!

What happens when we hit Peak Oil?

As / when this happens - which may be rather further off than you realise - oil will continue to be available and used, and marginal uses of oil today (e.g. heating homes, generating electricity) will switch to other forms of energy (coal, nuclear). Functions which are more oil dependent (e.g. transport) will switch to transportation methods which do not need oil (see the French train system? Runs on nuclear power), and where that is not cost effective - air travel - prices will go up and alternative sources of high energy content liquid fuels will be used (the remaining oil, coal-to-oil, biofuels). Simples.

Agrochemicals of all kinds will become scarcer and more expensive.

Our ability to feed the current billions is aided in no small part by mechanized farming methods and the abundance of artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

Rubbish. All of those require large energy inputs, true, but oil is not the only source of energy.

Importantly, one of our most powerful weapons today is genetically modified foods. These can be developed in a way that produces higher yields, uses water more efficiently, reduces fertiliser and pesticide use. Of course the merchants of doom insist we can't use these, but not based on evidence: all based on irrational, superstitious fears and false reasoning (such as the deeply flawed precautionary principle, which is merely irrational ideology pushed to an extreme).

Tell you what: you guys go and finger your worry beads somewhere quiet, while us scientists press on with making human life ever better, with less impact on the environment.

[Executive Sadman]

Crazy, when you think we make up little more than 1% of the worlds population, and less than a century ago, we owned most the planet.

[libspero]

Tell you what: you guys go and finger your worry beads somewhere quiet, while us scientists press on with making human life ever better, with less impact on the environment.

The most arrogant statement I've read in a long time.. there should be an award!

Feel a lot better knowing you're on the job though

[Rapid Descent]

The most arrogant statement I've read in a long time.. there should be an award!

Nothing to do with me personally - it is based on the endeavours of a vast army of people over hundreds of years, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. Plus, with 7 billion people, that means more brains turned to the problem of making our lives better.

I couldn't give a rats **** if you don't like me personally. In a world of nearly 7 billion people, I really couldn't care less. I'd be interested if you had a substantive response (preferably with evidence) on the points I made. I'm guessing from the nature of your reply that I shouldn't be holding my breath...

[libspero]

I couldn't give a rats **** if you don't like me personally.

I love you like an HPC brother.. I just thought your post was hilariously arrogant

In a world of nearly 7 billion people, I really couldn't care less. I'd be interested if you had a substantive response (preferably with evidence) on the points I made. I'm guessing from the nature of your reply that I shouldn't be holding my breath...

I skimmed through the thread looking for some form of deeply scientific analysis that I should be responding to. I assume that you are just talking about your previous post.

You clearly see nothing concerning about an increasing global population, nor its effects on the environment we share. Provided there is always a new technology to keep us just ahead of the equilibrium point it matters not how we mould our resources so long as humans are able to sustain themselves in one form or another. I guess you don't see/consider any detrimental side effects to our standard of living or that of the other creatures who inhabit our planet so I don't think we really have much to go at.

As an open question to those who like to write off detractors of unfettered population growth as " neo-malthusians" or "ludites"..

Why do you feel that technological progress and population growth are mutually inclusive?

What perceived benefit do you attribute to a high (say greater than 3bn) human population on the planet?

[Authoritarian]

What perceived benefit do you attribute to a high (say greater than 3bn) human population on the planet?

A much greater chance of species survival. Why should humans artificially limit their potential, just so the planet can be emancipated from "unfettered population growth?" Putting the planet's needs above the needs of humans seems like a backwards approach to me, the planet doesn't need anything, it's just a large rock circling the sun. If humans aren't going to exploit the resources that have been gifted to us by nature who do you suppose will?

If it's a choice between leaving the earth all neat and tidy with minimal human impact and seeing how far we can push the boundaries I'd opt for the latter every single time. The greater danger lays in not taking advantage of the opportunities that the environment affords, that would be doing the planet a massive disservice.

[Rapid Descent]

I love you like an HPC brother.. I just thought your post was hilariously arrogant

And, just to be clear, I'm not saying it wasn't

I skimmed through the thread looking for some form of deeply scientific analysis that I should be responding to. I assume that you are just talking about your previous post.

You clearly see nothing concerning about an increasing global population, nor its effects on the environment we share. Provided there is always a new technology to keep us just ahead of the equilibrium point it matters not how we mould our resources so long as humans are able to sustain themselves in one form or another. I guess you don't see/consider any detrimental side effects to our standard of living or that of the other creatures who inhabit our planet so I don't think we really have much to go at.

No, my main points were addressing false claims regarding peak oil being the end of civilisation as we know it on this thread. You raise a separate, but interesting question.

It is true that human population growth without commensurate wealth increases create problems. But as long as wealth improves, the environment inevitably improves with it. If we look at the history of say, the UK, the US, and developing places like China and India; initially, improved health care results in a booming population, but a large proportion of the population remain in poverty. This reflects the UK and US perhaps 100 years ago, but places like China and India today.

In Victorian England, massive environmental damage occurred because we did not understand enough to stop it. Contamination of water tables, destruction of habitat etc.

But now, we are more populus but - critically - wealthier and this allows us to put more time and effort into the environment. Water, air pollution, etc., etc., are much lower today in the UK than they were 50-100 years ago when the population was smaller. And with increasing resources, wealth and understanding this is only likely to improve further.

Places like China and India still have to turn that corner. They are not yet prosperous enough to put the time and energy our wealth enables us to put into the environment, and environmental problems are much more frequent there than here (e.g. Asian "brown cloud" and algae blooms). But there is no reason why, as they develop, more time will not be spent addressing these things.

The net result, based on historical evidence, will be a more populated world with better environmental conditions than we have today.

As an open question to those who like to write off detractors of unfettered population growth as " neo-malthusians" or "ludites"..

Why do you feel that technological progress and population growth are mutually inclusive?

What perceived benefit do you attribute to a high (say greater than 3bn) human population on the planet?

"Neo-Malthusian" is appropriate because the fallacies being applied are Malthusian fallacies; sometimes mixed in with a dose of naturalistic fallacy, plus a side smattering of "Is-Ought" errors. Based on historical evidence, the overpopulation claim is commonly flawed, which means the burden is on you to show why you are right this time when so many others were wrong before you. But seriously, trying to define an arbitrary cap for human population is a foolish game. It begs too many questions. Generally, more people means more people working on environmental problems - which should be a good thing. It also begs so many questions: why 3 billion? Seriously, we need a rational justification for any number. And even if you could come up with a rational justification that did not suffer from post hoc issues, how would you decide who gets euthanised? Having euthanised enough, who are you to exercise controls over the wombs of around 1.5 billion remaining women?

Example: In the 1970s, current science advisor (!) to the US white house predicted that by 2040 US population of 280 million would be far too many, and that the US would not be able to feed itself, and that population control was necessary to prevent millions of deaths from famine. Today, the US has over 300 million population and it has never been better fed. (Just check the waistlines of a few USians if you don't believe me). John Holdren was utterly wrong in his prediction. So why is the number you pulled out of thin air any better than the number John Holdren pulled out of thin air?

[Authoritarian]

A lecture on saving the planet from professor Carlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[MrPin]

Crazy, when you think we make up little more than 1% of the worlds population, and less than a century ago, we owned most the planet.

Who are "we"?

[libspero]

.

[libspero]

A much greater chance of species survival. Why should humans artificially limit their potential, just so the planet can be emancipated from "unfettered population growth?" Putting the planet's needs above the needs of humans seems like a backwards approach to me, the planet doesn't need anything, it's just a large rock circling the sun. If humans aren't going to exploit the resources that have been gifted to us by nature who do you suppose will?

I'm not sure whether I'd agree that having a global population of say, 30bn would give much greater chance of survival than a population of say 3bn. What is it that you are concerned will wipe out 3 that wouldn't wipe out 30? Even if you decide that you care not for the fate of the other species we share the planet with.. what about our own standard of living? If you want to talk selfishly, what about having to share resources with more people? having to share land with more people? What about the point that, the higher our required level of efficiency, the higher the risk from unexpected shocks?

If it's a choice between leaving the earth all neat and tidy with minimal human impact and seeing how far we can push the boundaries I'd opt for the latter every single time. The greater danger lays in not taking advantage of the opportunities that the environment affords, that would be doing the planet a massive disservice.

Except you are creating a polarising choice that does not exist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why not leave the earth with minimal human impact WHILE seeing how far we can push the boundaries of technology and the opportunities that the environment affords?

In response to your stand up clip.. here's a bit of a lecture by a Dr Bartlett you might consider.

[libspero]

It is true that human population growth without commensurate wealth increases create problems. But as long as wealth improves, the environment inevitably improves with it. If we look at the history of say, the UK, the US, and developing places like China and India; initially, improved health care results in a booming population, but a large proportion of the population remain in poverty. This reflects the UK and US perhaps 100 years ago, but places like China and India today.

- SNIP -

The net result, based on historical evidence, will be a more populated world with better environmental conditions than we have today.

I agree broadly with your historical interpretation. I would perhaps swap "wealth" for improved production efficiency/ability.

I'm not sure I agree that the environment inevitably improves with increased wealth. You have chosen a time where certain environmental conditions became significantly worse as the result of increased population and wealth. I agree that these particular issues were then investigated and resolved.. but I don't think you can always assume it will be the inevitable result. Do you feel your environment has improved over the past 200 years with regards to:

The number of local fields / open areas near a typical house.

The size and availability of housing stock

The amount of private/common/grazing land not utilised for intensive farming

The number of hedgerows

The ease with which you can enjoy nature and personal space

The availability of school playing fields

You claim that advances in technology will always lead to cheaper and more efficient access to energy which in turn will generate more wealth which can be used to off-set any negative impact deriving from population increases.

I agree that advances in technology make it unlikely that we will never have alternative sources of energy. I would disagree that they will necessarily be as cheap and efficient as the ones we are using today.. if the population continues to expand I don't see how this won't have a negative impact on the current standard of living.

trying to define an arbitrary cap for human population is a foolish game. It begs too many questions. Generally, more people means more people working on environmental problems - which should be a good thing. It also begs so many questions: why 3 billion? Seriously, we need a rational justification for any number. And even if you could come up with a rational justification that did not suffer from post hoc issues, how would you decide who gets euthanised? Having euthanised enough, who are you to exercise controls over the wombs of around 1.5 billion remaining women?

I fear your concern about the possible solution is clouding your judgement of the issue. Nobody is suggesting killing people or controlling people at this stage.. we are still debating whether there is an issue to debate. If we agree there is a problem but there is no solution that is one thing. Suggesting there is no problem in the first place because we fear the solution is simply cognitive dissonance . Anyway.. I'm sure any scientists who can bring us limitless cheap fuel can resolve this little issue completely ethically..

[Rapid Descent]

I agree broadly with your historical interpretation. I would perhaps swap "wealth" for improved production efficiency/ability.

I'm not sure I agree that the environment inevitably improves with increased wealth. You have chosen a time where certain environmental conditions became significantly worse as the result of increased population and wealth. I agree that these particular issues were then investigated and resolved.. but I don't think you can always assume it will be the inevitable result.

Sure. I can agree it isn't inevitable. We do have to work at it, and that includes acknowledging a broad spectrum of views on the matter.

Do you feel your environment has improved over the past 200 years with regards to:

The number of local fields / open areas near a typical house.

The size and availability of housing stock

The amount of private/common/grazing land not utilised for intensive farming

The number of hedgerows

The ease with which you can enjoy nature and personal space

The availability of school playing fields

Multi part response to this.

Firstly, the importance of these are largely value judgements that are solved through the planning process. The planning process in the UK is not very good, and has always supported large landowners keeping their great tracts of land and biased against individuals who generally get holed up in boxes in cities. But this is nothing new - same as 200 years ago, really. That issue can be solved.

Secondly, in my mind, most of these things have improved. Size and availability of housing stock has massively increased compared to two hundred years ago, when slums and workhouses were common place. Not sure what hedgerows have to do with the price of fish. Ease with which we can enjoy nature - massively improved thanks to national parks and improved transport links, likewise for fields/open areas near houses. Availability of school playing fields? 200 years ago the problem was availability of *schools*, the poorest didn't even get an education.

I suspect more land is used today for intensive farming - but so what? We now have protected areas (under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949) which are guaranteed by law. That guarantee didn't exist 200 years ago. Overall, this is a better use of the land.

Thirdly, a lot of the things you want to protect - ploughed fields, playing areas, cultivated hedgerows - have little or nothing to do with nature. These are all man-made things. It seems you have a desire to retain a particular era of man-made countryside rather than more "natural" countryside (such as moorlands) or what man will create in the future. Beyond a degree of nostalgia, I'm lost as to why this would be a particularly good thing.

You claim that advances in technology will always lead to cheaper and more efficient access to energy

No, this is not my claim. Wealth will make more expensive forms of energy more viable as the cheap ones we use today either become unavailable or unwanted.

For example, in India many people cook with wood-burning stoves. These are horribly dirty, and have a horrific impact on the environment - but they are extremely cheap. Paraffin is more expensive, but has a much smaller environmental impact. A wealthier society would choose Paraffin, but many Indians still rely on the cheaper wood. The value associated with a cleaner environment appeals more to a wealthier society, to whom the cost of paraffin is not a significant one.

I fear your concern about the possible solution is clouding your judgement of the issue. Nobody is suggesting killing people or controlling people at this stage.. we are still debating whether there is an issue to debate.

No, I beleive the methodology is relevant. If you have no means of enforcing a population limit, the debate over whether there should be one is moot.