India: Rajasthan in 'cars for sterilisation' drive

[civ_king]

We still only have one planet.



You seem to be confusing fertility and population growth.

Besides, you also need to consider how much resources those people will consume.

for now.

population will peak in the not so distant future. Ingenuity can make us use less resources or change the resources needed to less scarce ones.

 

[Tee Kay]

for now.

And for the foreseeable future.

population will peak in the not so distant future.

What I'm worried about is where it will peak and what kind of world it will be.

Ingenuity can make us use less resources or change the resources needed to less scarce ones.

Which is a fair enough point. In the mean time population growth should be managed at a sustainable level.

Obviously there are limits to human ingenuity to solve our problems, otherwise we'd be joyriding to Mars now.

 

[El_Machinae]

To be fair, the issue just as much applies to people who do worry about overpopulation. Since all of these things point to an overpopulation crash being the result of far, far more then just the number of people in an area.

Yes, the people concerned about overpopulation do have to put forward their concerns. They cannot just say "imagine what happens if there're too many people!", because while the concern is true in the scenario, it's not reasonable just to 'imagine'. They need metrics as well.

I have metrics that I watch, and some of them worry me. I am watching aquifers be depleted (which are currently being costed at roughly the extraction cost, not the market value), I am watching fish stocks (and their ecosystems) be depleted (which are currently being costed at their extraction cost (plus subsidies!), not the true cost). We're watching topsoil be depleted and deadzones growing. We're watching a continued rate of extinctions.

Now, all of these things are natural capital. Like any trust fund, you can spend natural capital wisely and you can spend it unwisely. A wise spending of a specific natural resource can cause dividends greatly in excess of what you'd get 'naturally'. But this is not always true.

Each new person requires ~1800 calories a day for the first 25 years, and then (if they're in a good economy) the person will start contributing. Is it possible for a person to pay dividends on their investment and maintenance costs? Of course! But it's still a cost that needs to be paid.

If aquifers, fish, topsoil, biodiversity are all being depleted then there's good reason to wonder how far they can be depleted before there's a crashing against the petri wall. More importantly, you cannot wave away the concern with history, because the presence of that wall is credible, and previous consumption is not a guarantee or even a good predictor. It's very similar to the trust fund: it's only if you know if you're getting sufficient returns on your investment do you know whether your withdrawls are wise.

There're some natural resources that're better off harvested. There're many destructions of our ecosystems that are survivable, and should be done if there's sufficient (reinvestable) profit.

What I'm asking for, though, from the pooh-poohers is their metric. How would they know ahead of time if there was an overpopulation concern?

 

[civ_king]

And for the foreseeable future.



What I'm worried about is where it will peak and what kind of world it will be.



Which is a fair enough point. In the mean time population growth should be managed at a sustainable level.

Obviously there are limits to human ingenuity to solve our problems, otherwise we'd be joyriding to Mars now.

If we had a coordinated effort between the G20 we could start colonization within twenty years

unlikely to peak much higher than nine billion.

Yes, the people concerned about overpopulation do have to put forward their concerns. They cannot just say "imagine what happens if there're too many people!", because while the concern is true in the scenario, it's not reasonable just to 'imagine'. They need metrics as well.

I have metrics that I watch, and some of them worry me. I am watching aquifers be depleted (which are currently being costed at roughly the extraction cost, not the market value), I am watching fish stocks (and their ecosystems) be depleted (which are currently being costed at their extraction cost (plus subsidies!), not the true cost). We're watching topsoil be depleted and deadzones growing. We're watching a continued rate of extinctions.

Now, all of these things are natural capital. Like any trust fund, you can spend natural capital wisely and you can spend it unwisely. A wise spending of a specific natural resource can cause dividends greatly in excess of what you'd get 'naturally'. But this is not always true.

Each new person requires ~1800 calories a day for the first 25 years, and then (if they're in a good economy) the person will start contributing. Is it possible for a person to pay dividends on their investment and maintenance costs? Of course! But it's still a cost that needs to be paid.

If aquifers, fish, topsoil, biodiversity are all being depleted then there's good reason to wonder how far they can be depleted before there's a crashing against the petri wall. More importantly, you cannot wave away the concern with history, because the presence of that wall is credible, and previous consumption is not a guarantee or even a good predictor. It's very similar to the trust fund: it's only if you know if you're getting sufficient returns on your investment do you know whether your withdrawls are wise.

There're some natural resources that're better off harvested. There're many destructions of our ecosystems that are survivable, and should be done if there's sufficient (reinvestable) profit.

What I'm asking for, though, from the pooh-poohers is their metric. How would they know ahead of time if there was an overpopulation concern?

We can breed plants that use less water, people are working on that in California and elsewhere presumably
We can shift our consumption back towards the land allowing fish stocks to get better (how much recovery could they make at ten years of half consumption?).
Topsoil can be built even while being farmed with new techniques.
We can solve all of these problems with engineering/science/ingenuity, we need to work together though.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, the people concerned about overpopulation do have to put forward their concerns. They cannot just say "imagine what happens if there're too many people!", because while the concern is true in the scenario, it's not reasonable just to 'imagine'. They need metrics as well.

I have metrics that I watch, and some of them worry me. I am watching aquifers be depleted (which are currently being costed at roughly the extraction cost, not the market value), I am watching fish stocks (and their ecosystems) be depleted (which are currently being costed at their extraction cost (plus subsidies!), not the true cost). We're watching topsoil be depleted and deadzones growing. We're watching a continued rate of extinctions.

Woah, woah, woah, wait, before we proceed on, I need to know we're working on the same issue: are we discussing population at a globalized or localized level?

 

[El_Machinae]

We can breed plants that use less water, people are working on that in California and elsewhere presumably
We can shift our consumption back towards the land allowing fish stocks to get better (how much recovery could they make at ten years of half consumption?).
Topsoil can be built even while being farmed with new techniques.
We can solve all of these problems with engineering/science/ingenuity, we need to work together though.

To the bolded: I agree.
I think we're still on a survivable (and thrivable) path, but only if certain things remain true. But, if you're insisting that 'we need to work together', then it's an implicit acceptance that there would be a problem if we don't work together enough. Know what I mean?

The urgency for teamwork entirely depends on bad things could be, given current natural trends.

Woah, woah, woah, wait, before we proceed on, I need to know we're working on the same issue: are we discussing population at a globalized or localized level?

Well, India seems to be a fair proxy for the planet. When I discuss population issues, I think in global terms, because we're so globalised. So, I was assuming a globalised population discussion.

People seem to be implying that India does not have a population concern. I don't think that idea holds.

 

[civ_king]

To the bolded: I agree.
I think we're still on a survivable (and thrivable) path, but only if certain things remain true. But, if you're insisting that 'we need to work together', then it's an implicit acceptance that there would be a problem if we don't work together enough. Know what I mean?

The urgency for teamwork entirely depends on bad things could be, given current natural trends.

Well, India seems to be a fair proxy for the planet. When I discuss population issues, I think in global terms, because we're so globalised. So, I was assuming a globalised population discussion.

People seem to be implying that India does not have a population concern. I don't think that idea holds.

Working together is a major part of civilisation. India has a population concern now, but if they worked on infrastructure it wouldn't.