Population -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:41:22 07/17/02 Wed
Author: Drummond
Subject: Population

As I posted at VRWC, conservatives and communists share a reluctance to even discuss population, and its potential impacts. The idea that the very existence of people might be a problem is something they don't want to deal with, both essentially believing that the world operated under divine providence or "God will provide."

The usual refrain is "Oh, Malthus." Malthus was wrong, and so the issue is moot. Erlich overshot his projections, so the issue is moot.

So the question I want to propose (the vrwcers simply refused to even consider the question), is there a maximum number of people that can be sustained by the Earth?

We should consider if every acre of arable land is farmed with maximum efficiency. We should consider scenarios involving a return to hunter gatherer (for which the Earth could support about 20 million by an estimate I heard in college). We should consider universal conspicuous consumption. We should consider universal subsistance diets.

The current population is about 6 billion, about double what it was in 1960. Supposedly, we are slowing down a bit so that we will "only" be at 9 billion by mid 21st century, assuming current trends continue, such as the AIDS crisis in Africa and the birthing restraint of affluence in developed societies, particularly where women have acquired certain rights. Other projections have us doubling our numbers well before then. Given that the vast majority of people who have ever lived are alive today, I'm not convinced that we are slowing that significantly.

There are various estimates of the maximum sustainable population, and some say we have already overshot that threshold. The lowest estimate I've heard is 100 million, this estimate and other estimates based on projecting methods known as the "immortal tiger model." The highest estimate I've heard is 30 billion, based upon projections based on the "ant farm model."

So maybe we are nowhere near the max, maybe we are over it. You would think that much more would be spent on studying the question, just to be sure. Maybe we will develop more methods of agriculture to maximize our ability to use the resources. Malthus apparently didn't consider technology as a variable, and did not forsee the advent of crop rotations, etc. Ehrlich did not forsee the decline of population growth due to the industrialization of certain portions of the world, the Africa AIDS crisis, and the loss of family owned land around the globe.

So obviously it's not easy to project, but what amazes me is the complete lack of interest in the question. More than lack of interest actually. Head in the sand. Complete denial. Try getting some to even admit that there is a maximum, that the Earth does not have infinite capacity to sustain conspicuous consumption. They automatically start arguing about how it's evil to tell people they shouldn't reproduce, or "Oh, Malthus."

So should we simply not consider the question and hope for the best?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]