Too many monkeys in the zoo

[AmazonQueen]

Fair point, but note that:
-using monetary terms skews the picture quite a bit;
- this data is from 2004, when there was 1.6 billion fewer of us;
- those poor countries quite justifiably wish to raise their living standards and resource consumption rate. Keep in mind how the cure for population growth is better education and more wealth...

They can raise it quite a way before it comes close to us, or do they have to stay poor so we can stay rich?
Still, we could start reducing our consumption without devastating most peoples living standards.
Just as rich countries consume far more resources a minority within our societies consume far more resources than most of us.
The amount of waste in our societies is ridiculous too. Built-in obsolescence shouldn't exist as a concept.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well ultimately to many humans will take care of itself.

Places like Africa will starve, other places will collapse politically or resort to war which will reduce population.

Or Gaia will say F you via climate change.

No fascism required. We should eat less meat consumption there could be cut by 50-70% and you still get to eat it.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not just 'some consume too much' as if it could be solved with 'some people could consume less'. Or, better phrased, way too many people are 'consuming too much'. At present trends (degradation of ecosystem services plus increased-ability-to-consume), the line of who is consuming too much is going to go down and down the income ladder. Our population is well-passed where it's entirely a redistribution problem.

Redistribution is within the solution-space of preventing deaths, so definitely don't reduce efforts there! But the QoL reduction required to solve over-population is a lot higher than what's needed to prevent near-term famine deaths. And nevermind when there's tension between those two budgets.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Human overpopulation is largely an over-dramatization and Kabuki theater propagated by climate alarmists and liberals who haven't done their research or ever lived outside of an urban city and have talking points from about 40 years ago which were just as wrong then as they are today.

Human beings have barely scratched the surface for production of food which remains to be scaled not just on a Global surface but additionally vertical farming as well. We Farm far less area of land today than we did 60 years ago so now we're not going to run out of food or at least the ability to produce food anytime in the next couple of Thousand Years assuming we do absolutely nothing from this point forward. So much for the lack of resources concerning food idea. The biggest hindrance to food production are other humans regulations Wars and authoritarian greed. The socialist problem has mostly been dealt with and most countries seem willing to relegate it to the trash bin of history but we do occasionally see places like Venezuela most recently needing to demonstrate their stupidity as a warning for the rest of the world. This foolishness in Ukraine will hopefully Sucker Punch enough people to wake up and realize it might not be a great idea to make the world grain basket Ground Zero for their petty squabbles. I really doubt enough people are paying attention to the politics of what their world leaders are doing but starvation is one of those things that tends to get people sitting up and paying attention. Regarding meat consumption no there is not a radical need to reduce meat calories what does free-range nonsense probably needs to stop and it would certainly help if worked as quickly as possible to modernize developing nations so they could produce their meat in the most efficient way possible. Genetically engineering our products would also go a long long way toward improving yields reducing carbon emissions and solving a host of other problems.

Additionally, we're not going to run out of room on Earth even assuming we don't come up with any new construction ideas or expand into the sea or Underground. City population span well into the tens of millions already a new construction such as what's being proposed by Saudi Arabia looks as if it will concentrate humans far more effectively into possibly the hundreds of Millions. So much for the idea of running out of space. And again that's assuming we don't expand into new areas.

As for global warming even if the worst projections possible are off by a factor of about 400% with temperatures over the next 100 years increasing world temperatures by about 16 degrees and water levels by 20 feet it would have exactly zero significance of an effect on human survivability and expansion. People would merely move to colder climates, and higher elevations, run their air conditioners more, produce more electricity, and go on with life with little-to-no care. Fortunately, it looks very much as if the climate is not changing at nearly the rate of previous predictions which have been wrong over and over and over again to the point that most people who believe in the accuracy of climate predictions should be viewed for the skepticism attributable to soothsayers, religious zealots, and end of the world street bums. If you think the world is going to end because of climate change you are about as informed as the local religious congregation claiming it will end with the return of Jesus next week or space aliens tomorrow. Read the IPCC's pop a Xanax stop getting your info from media sites trying to sell clicks. Just kick back and chill out. You'll be fine.

 

[Angst]

I know main point is we passed the sustainable number 100 odd years ago.

uh no

you're not getting my point

both numbers are unsustainable per the living standards of the west

also 2 bil, because that can't sustain the living standards

 

[Zardnaar]

Human overpopulation is largely an over-dramatization and Kabuki theater propagated by climate alarmists and liberals who haven't done their research or ever lived outside of an urban city and have talking points from about 40 years ago which were just as wrong then as they are today.

Human beings have barely scratched the surface for production of food which remains to be scaled not just on a Global surface but additionally vertical farming as well. We Farm far less area of land today than we did 60 years ago so now we're not going to run out of food or at least the ability to produce food anytime in the next couple of Thousand Years assuming we do absolutely nothing from this point forward. So much for the lack of resources concerning food idea. The biggest hindrance to food production are other humans regulations Wars and authoritarian greed. The socialist problem has mostly been dealt with and most countries seem willing to relegate it to the trash bin of history but we do occasionally see places like Venezuela most recently needing to demonstrate their stupidity as a warning for the rest of the world. This foolishness in Ukraine will hopefully Sucker Punch enough people to wake up and realize it might not be a great idea to make the world grain basket Ground Zero for their petty squabbles. I really doubt enough people are paying attention to the politics of what their world leaders are doing but starvation is one of those things that tends to get people sitting up and paying attention. Regarding meat consumption no there is not a radical need to reduce meat calories what does free-range nonsense probably needs to stop and it would certainly help if worked as quickly as possible to modernize developing nations so they could produce their meat in the most efficient way possible. Genetically engineering our products would also go a long long way toward improving yields reducing carbon emissions and solving a host of other problems.

Additionally, we're not going to run out of room on Earth even assuming we don't come up with any new construction ideas or expand into the sea or Underground. City population span well into the tens of millions already a new construction such as what's being proposed by Saudi Arabia looks as if it will concentrate humans far more effectively into possibly the hundreds of Millions. So much for the idea of running out of space. And again that's assuming we don't expand into new areas.

As for global warming even if the worst projections possible are off by a factor of about 400% with temperatures over the next 100 years increasing world temperatures by about 16 degrees and water levels by 20 feet it would have exactly zero significance of an effect on human survivability and expansion. People would merely move to colder climates, and higher elevations, run their air conditioners more, produce more electricity, and go on with life with little-to-no care. Fortunately, it looks very much as if the climate is not changing at nearly the rate of previous predictions which have been wrong over and over and over again to the point that most people who believe in the accuracy of climate predictions should be viewed for the skepticism attributable to soothsayers, religious zealots, and end of the world street bums. If you think the world is going to end because of climate change you are about as informed as the local religious congregation claiming it will end with the return of Jesus next week or space aliens tomorrow. Read the IPCC's pop a Xanax stop getting your info from media sites trying to sell clicks. Just kick back and chill out. You'll be fine.

Increasing farm production has various flow on problems.

Ore nitrated in the soil, depletion of groundwater etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

uh no

you're not getting my point

both numbers are unsustainable per the living standards of the west

also 2 bil, because that can't sustain the living standards

Well it was a while ago I read that. I can't remember the exact living standards but the 2 billion number was what I remember.

There's two overlapping problems. To many humans in general and overconsumption

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

uh no

you're not getting my point

both numbers are unsustainable per the living standards of the west

also 2 bil, because that can't sustain the living standards

There is a long, long history of people predicting and calculating what is "unsustainable" and being wrong. Most studies today think under 8 Billion while some studies estimate as high as 1,024 billion.

 

[Senethro]

There have been some posts effectively saying: "Stop accusing each other of being That Guy. There are no That Guys here, and That Guy doesn't even exist."

So thanks to That Guy for having the grace to show up.

 

[DaggerDigwillow]

Increasing farm production has various flow on problems.

Ore nitrated in the soil, depletion of groundwater etc.

The reason for nitrate shortage is because of the energy shortage causing increased prices. Groundwater can be replenished and we have no shortage of water. Again purification and desalination of water take energy. Fix the energy problem and all these other problems go away.

 

[El_Machinae]

The reason for nitrate shortage is because of the energy shortage causing increased prices. Groundwater can be replenished and we have no shortage of water. Again purification and desalination of water take energy. Fix the energy problem and all these other problems go away.

What do you think is the problem being described? Even now, you sound as if the various issues are 'solvable'. But until they're solved, they're not solved. Or, if they're solvable, it's someone else's problem to fix?

Liken it to imbalanced budgets. Some people are talking about being in debt, some people are talking about being in a deficit, others are talking about being on an unsustainable deficit trend. But if one person is talking about one and the other person is talking about the other, they won't understand each other's solutions. (Actually, I think this is a good question for everyone)

Do you think that ecosystem services are being depleted? Your post was weird upthread when you said "people will just move because of global warming", which was ignoring something like 99.9% of the expressed concerns on the topic.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, simple enough. We could just fix it with infinite, clean, consequence free energy?

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, simple enough. We could just fix it with infinite, clean, consequence free energy?

Heh theoretically NZ essentially has abundant clean energy.b

Bit I can see the impact of high intensity farming in the land just by looking at the impact it's had on the local rivers.

30 years ago we would go swimming in one we gave up doing that and switched to a river thatvwas "crap" in the 80's as it's shallower. Now though upsteam it's forestry the other river farming.

Food produced is for export. We can feed 40 million people population 5.

One can observe the impact with one's own eyes though.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's easy to get discouraged about it because it still hasn't been picked up by anyone with any sort of authority, but I remember being 12 and reading about the first lab-grown burger that was only vaguely edible and cost thousands of dollars. Nowadays the prototypes can cost anywhere from $11 to $40 for a serving, which is still not a serious competitor, but it's pretty good given the tiny scale the research is operating at.

Anyway:

"Rearing livestock comes with a huge environmental impact. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations says that the total emissions from global livestock represented 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), with cattle raised for beef and milk accounting for around 65% of the livestock sector’s emissions.

Then there’s land and water use to consider. Research(opens in new tab) states the production of one kilogram of beef requires 15,414 liters of water on average, while nearly 80% of the world’s agricultural land is used for beef production, according to an article published by the University of Oxford’s Our World in Data.

A 2011 comparative study in the Environmental Science & Technology journal states: 'In comparison to conventionally produced European meat, cultured meat involves approximately 7%-45% lower energy use, 78%-96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82%-96% lower water use depending on the product compared.'"

Lab-grown meat: How it's made, sustainability and nutrition

Lab-grown meat is a genetically engineered product that uses biotechnology. But is it healthier than meat reared from livestock?

www.livescience.com

I'd like people to note so many factors about this.

(a) initial funding for the the essential groundwork: tools and skills
(a.i) early institutional support
(b) early speculative investment PLUS actual charity donations
(c) the seed funding from early-adoption consumers
(d) the eventual necessary success of appealing to a consumer base

Every cohort has a different reason to provide some of the final funding: your government has a different 'goal' than the charity, so they'll fund different stages at different intensities; the speculator will have a different motive, so is funding at a different stage; each early-adopter has different motivations and standards (though their money all spends); and consumers will consumer.

IF lab-grown meat actually starts allowing substitution so that total 'real meat' consumption goes down, then there will be a lesson available at each stage of success. But it will be a project that had an end-goal plus buy-in from a variety of motivations. And it can have a stretch goal of 'increased total meat available to those that want it PLUS a reduction in animal meat consumed'. That's a different success.

A huge percentage of non-sustainable consumption will lie along this path. Getting (a), (b), and (c) are each different 'arenas' where people can (and did, here) help, though you can brute-force one with another. The last thing you want is the person into whom (a) was invested waiting tables to pay their bills, because the countdown to that (eventual) success is a statistic our eyes glaze over. And you don't want someone waiting tables who could have (b), (c), (d)ed if they'd only been (a)ed

 

[Narz]

Approach it from a different angle. If "overpopulation" is real, then a correct population must exist. How would you identify this correct population? If you cannot, then how do you even know what overpopulation is?

Lol there's a new level of obstructionisticness

We don't know that & obviously it would be a moving figure depending on how smartly we can live and the state of the earth. It's a planet not a f-in swimming pool or elevator.

If you had a loved one who weighs 400lb and the doctor told them it would help there biomarkers to lose weight and then were like "Yeah doc, how do you know? Can you tell me my perfect ideal weight otherwise you're full of crap" you'd think they were nuts, no? What we know is the "vitals" of earth are out of whack.

See also the parable of the poison arrow

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

While people argue over unknowables and wait to act until there are none things fall apart. Reminds of oil companies suggesting we need more research about climate change

 

[Narz]

Comparison: Portrayal of "Immigrants" as The Problem. A group of people are hugely and savagely villified, when the actual problem are the push, pull and disruptive factors that cause their movement.

No one is doing that. You're off topic and out to lunch

 

[Narz]

Vanished' is a mealy word, because it's not what people are saying or hearing.

Agreed. For some reason on this topic people seem to be hearing lots of voices that aren't there.

And sux you lost your reply, I hate that. I obsessively select all/copy when I get beyond a certain length in case my device randomly dies

 

[Akka]

As for global warming even if the worst projections possible are off by a factor of about 400% with temperatures over the next 100 years increasing world temperatures by about 16 degrees and water levels by 20 feet it would have exactly zero significance of an effect on human survivability and expansion.

Man, that's just lunacy.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Agreed. For some reason on this topic people seem to be hearing lots of voices that aren't there.

And sux you lost your reply, I hate that. I obsessively select all/copy when I get beyond a certain length in case my device randomly dies

Thats because you're saying so little. You think overpopulation is a problem.
Already? Some time in the future? You're not sure.
The only thing your solution consists of is "Not that".

 

[Narz]

Thats because you're saying so little.

No, you're just not listening.

You think overpopulation is a problem.
Already?

See above. I already answered that. Likely we've been overpopulated for @ least 100 years & @ consumption levels of 100 years ago. And of course the natural world was in a much better state back then too. So every year carrying capacity goes down.

As for solutions I never promised any but at least I'm not pretending there's no issues.

Some might argue we were screwed as soon as we started mass agriculture but I try to be more optimistic about things than that.

Re : solutions I agree we need a bit of an eco-tyranical govt severely restricting bad actions (by corporations & individuals), discipline = freedom & all that

Our current conceptions of freedom is like that Simpsons episode where every1 acts like Bart (do what you feel like day or something), unsustainable