Global Population Issues

[jennypenny]

I'm not in favor of prolonging life indefinitely, but I'm also not in favor of hastening anyone's demise. I'm not willing to make a judgement call about anyone else's quality of life, especially someone I don't know. That's a slippery slope.

That's not the point I was getting to, though. I think medical heroics can happen when you're sitting with other family members who aren't on board with the K approach. You have to make a call knowing that it not only affects the patient, but also your future relationship with your other family members.


Regarding the rest ... I can see the logic in the argument, but there is something about making decisions based on "the greater good" that sends a chill up my spine. I'm sure sound arguments can be made for withholding life saving care in the elderly or infirm and enforcing offspring limits to relieve the pressures of overpopulation. I'm just not sure I want to live in that world.

[Tyler9000]

Like most doomsday predictions, I've personally always found the Ehrlich angle to be lacking when measured against reality. This does a pretty thorough job of laying out an alternative interpretation of the "facts".

http://tinyurl.com/mdpaphq

Also, I agree that the "solutions" sometimes tossed around are chilling from a human perspective.

[Devil's Advocate]

Fascinating topic!

I'm afraid these concepts were new to me, and I had to look up these terms, r-selection, K-selection and Eusocial, on Wikipedia.

But speaking from this position of admittedly scant knowledge, it appears to me that these categories would apply nicely to non-human species, less so (only somewhat) to human societies, and not at all to individual live humans.

No (wo)man can look kindly at the prospect of having their life snuffed out, no matter the greater good. Others may, but the fellow on the cot won't. Unwillingness to face pain or indignity are likely to be more apt reasons to choose to go earlier than one must.

Unless there's some quasi-religious BSing/brainwashing afoot.

[Chad]

Regarding the rest ... I can see the logic in the argument, but there is something about making decisions based on "the greater good" that sends a chill up my spine. I'm sure sound arguments can be made for withholding life saving care in the elderly or infirm and enforcing offspring limits to relieve the pressures of overpopulation. I'm just not sure I want to live in that world.

As with almost everything, the "greater good" should not be the only variable or it will cause the nastiness that comes to your mind. Of course, this is true of blindly following almost any single moral strategy.
_________________

It appears we are slowly, probably way too slowly, moving towards a K society via creating more r societies.

There is an obvious downward trend in population growth.
http://www.census.gov/population/intern ... rgraph.php

Even though the populations have grown the per capita energy use for developed countries has stayed flat or decreased. Obviously, we need to do better, but it shows at least modest amount of awareness.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... se/254909/

Traditional car ownership seems to be on the way out. This drop is probably initially due to economics, but with driverless cars around the corner and a much larger urban population I don't see how the predictions in the second article don't come about.
http://gas2.org/wp-content/uploads/2014 ... 00x287.jpg
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758560/dr ... -ownership

China is even beginning to acknowledge certain issues. Not a fix, but it still moves them every so slightly towards K.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... 0-24842745

Even though a good portion of people on here are vehemently opposed to r societies and all the trappings of those societies, it does seem like an r society may naturally turn towards a k society as the r society improves it's tech, education, and wealth. So, are r societies really as bad as this forum is suggesting?

@SW

Are there certain things about the way modern humans are wired/evolved that make other reproductive strategies less appealing or even impossible for us?

I don't think so, as there are numerous examples of different reproductive strategies throughout history. This includes the fact that the current monogamous dual pairing probably wasn't the dominant way we have reproduced throughout our history. Just like it wasn't always common for a couple to sleep in the same bed. It seems that reproductive strategies for humans are as much influenced by culture, as by evolution.

[jennypenny]

I still have a couple of questions that aren't related to killing off Ego's neighbors in Soylent Towers ...

1) Is the world currently overpopulated? Or is it the rate of growth that's unsustainable? Or the distribution around the globe? Or is the number sustainable now but not in a low-energy future?

2) is the problem population itself, or is the problem that we haven't adequately addressed other problems such as educating women, adequate health care, sustainable food sources, energy consumption, etc.? If population rates naturally decline when those issues are addressed, do we even need a 'solution' to the population issue, or will rates go down as we solve other problems?

3) What happens when big issues have contradictory solutions? This thread implies that our transition from a meat-based to a grain-based diet lead to population issues. The climate change thread implies that a grain-based diet is better than a meat-based diet for the environment. Do I have that right? Then what's the solution?

------------------

btw ... Those questions aren't just directed at jacob. I'm curious about what everyone thinks since we all come at this from different angles/biases/cultural backgrounds.

[jacob]

We ought not be too hasty in rejecting any world-view that does not "respect the individual's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" as "inhuman" and "a world I don't want to live in".

Consider the military/warrior culture which contains many eusocial values and behaviours, such as

* The willingness to put fellow soldiers before oneself, despite not being related by blood.
* "No one gets left behind" --- risking the many to save the one.
* Soldiers volunteering to make a fatal stand while the rest escapes --- freely dying to save the group
* There's a clear caste system (officers and privates) and soldiers are highly specialized.
* Dying in battle is considered to be more honorable/heroic than dying of old age.

For an organization that demonstrates so many supposedly "inhuman" values there seems to be an awful lot of people who want to join it

In summary, just because a given society seems totally unlivable given the values you have doesn't mean that other humans who have the values of that given society won't prefer it. And that's just the thing. A lot of different strategies are viable due to human capacity. However, most transitions are not viable because humans are rather inflexible when it comes to changing their opinions and values.

[jacob]

@jp - I posted my little engineering triangle above stating that the world can have either two of quantity of life, quality of life, and/or freedom of life but not all three. I think you may have misunderstood. Let me rephrase, you can either have a large population (quantity), a high consumption standard of living (quality), a lack of what we might see as draconian regulations (freedom). Pick any two.

Depending on viewpoint, we can either say that
a) if standard of living and existing social structures are to be preserved, then there are too many people (about a factor 6 too many---the US population need to be 50 million for example)
b) if the number of people and existing social structures are to be preserved, then the standard of living is too high (about a factor 6 too high, the US standard of living needs to drop to that of Mexico for example, and Mexico's needs to drop to that of Bangladesh)
c) if standard of living and the number of people are to be preserved, then "inhuman" regulations are required (about a factor 6 too free, people will be forced to adopt efficiency measures that make me look wasteful)

I think people who rant about overpopulation prefer the (a) solution. In general, humans seem to prefer option (c) and rather than pursuing the K-strategy of regulaton to increase the complexity of the system to attain the necessary efficiency, humans prefer the r-strategy of fighting each other. See the Middle East. How many countries in that area are not currently at war or dealing with revolutions and insurgency?

Obviously human adaption will pursue all three strategies. For example, some will have fewer children due to education and some will see their children die of malnutrition, thus helping (a), some will move into their parents basement(first world) or starve(third world) thus helping out in (b), and some will adopt efficiency measures or start a revolution(c).

All these discussions are simply about which is the better approach.

Everybody pulls on one or more of these three levers and in turn others will pull on other levers.

On to the question ...

Overpopulation means that a species has exceeded its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the amount of resources that can be drawn sustainably. Sustainably means without eating into capital, that is, not using resources faster than they are renewed. People here should be familiar with the financial analogy. For a given amount of savings, the SWR is 3%. If more than 3% is withdrawn, the withdrawal rate exceeds the carrying capacity of the portfolio. You're drawing down capital. At some point you will run out of capital and this will happen exponentially faster the closer you get to zero. This is what it means to be unsustainable. Now, you can time your withdrawal so that the money runs out shortly before you die. In the interest of future generations, that would not be wise when it comes to the planet... because there wouldn't be any future generations.

"Sustainable now" is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense to put the words together. Whether something is sustainable depends on the long run. If you look at your portfolio, you can ask whether it would be "sustainable now" to draw down 10% per year for a few years. Maybe that'd work, but it means drawing less than 3% in the future because your capital base was eroded. If you use less than 3%, you capital base builds, but you have to wait for it.

Humans currently use energy (in the form of fossil fuels) at an order corresponding to 40% of all the photosynthesis on the planet. What does this imply? That even if we could wait a couple of million years for the fossil fuels to regenerate from dead plants, we'd need to send 40% of all plant growth on the planet underground every year. We get away with our high energy use because we're drawing down capital. If we didn't have that capital, we'd have to find a way to create energy that's as efficient as commanding 40% of the planet's vegetation to supply our fuel usage.

The metaphor for technology is better investment methods. If you could figure out how to withdraw 5% instead of 3%, you'd have increased your carrying capacity. Or suppose you figure out that you can invest in a hereforeto unknown area. That works too.

Unfortunately, it's not as easy or automatic as hoping that "they will figure something out".

Some quotes ... which are kinda symptomatic of mining industry.

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... -gold.html

"Furthermore, the average gold yield for the group [(Barrick, Newmont, AngloGold, Goldfields & Goldcorp)] declined from 1.68 g/t in 2005 to 1.20 g/t in 2013.  Which means these miners lost 0.48 g/t in just eight years… a 29% decline."

"In 2005, the group processed 464 million metric tons of ore to produce 25.2 million ounces of gold at an average yield of 1.68 g/t. In 2013, this same group processed 592 metric tons of ore (27% more), to produce 22.9 million ounces of gold."

"In 2005, Newmont consumed 19 gallons of diesel in its operations to produce one ounce of gold.  By 2012, this increased to a staggering 31 gallons per ounce…. a 63% increase in seven years."

Now one may ask, why given that gold has tripled in value over those years didn't these companies just take some of that money and invest it technology to increase extraction efficiency. Because it's not as easy as simply writing a bigger check.

So I think I answered the first two questions more or less except I didn't really give you the scale of the issue. The solution is to pull levers a, b, and c. Everybody will be pulling in different directions and not all of it will be constructive. For example, the Bush administration promoted an increase in our standards of living (anti-b) which in turn meant that the Middle East is now pulling hard on the c lever.

The scale of the issue is that the carrying capacity is something like
1 billion people on a US+EU standard of living.
6 billion people on a Mexican standard of living.
9 billion people on a Bangladeshian standard of living.
This presumes that existing social structures are maintained. I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that humanity would suddenly wisen up when it comes to governing their own behavior.

To answer (3), I think you got it wrong. Both population and climate would be helped by a grain-based diet. They are not contradictory. In any case, when big issues have contradictory solutions, it tends to lead to long forum threads and/or war.

And while we all come at this from different angles/biases/cultural backgrounds, the facts we have to deal with are the same

[Chad]

Or, we figure out a way to send those people to space. Where there will be a whole new set of problems.

[jacob]

Hehehe...

Current population: 7,200,000,000 ppl (everybody who thought the number was smaller than that, raise their hand)

Annual population growth: 49,000,000 ppl. (~ the population of Spain)

Weight: 140 x 49,000,000 = 6,860,000,000 lbs

Launch cost to LEO with Proton rocket: $2000/lbs

Launch capacity of Proton rocket: 46000 lbs

Annual number of launches: 1.5 million (400 each day)

Annual cost of launching surplus into LEO: 13.7 Trillion USD.

World GDP: 71 Trillion USD.

I'm ignoring the "minor" issue of needing, building, and launching space stations which can hold an additional 50 million people annually as well as expanding food production in space or launching that separately. Although obviously comparing apples and oranges, the current cost of ISS is 7.5 million USD/person/day in space.

[Devil's Advocate]

Enjoyed this whole post. Jacob's "engineering problem" view of the issue is brilliantly put. Is it an original thought? If it is, I found it brilliant.

Now I'm totally out of my depth on this topic, but still I'm speaking up because the "solution" seems obvious to me. Perhaps simply on account of my ignorance on this topic, but there it is. Glaringly obvious.

The key is the term "standard of living". In ERE we don't lower our standard of living, we merely redefine it. We actually RAISE our standard of living exponentially while reducing expenses exponentially. I know I did.

So why is that not doable on a macro scale? That would seem to be the ideal recipe.

An additional dash of technological serendipity, should it be forthcoming, would help make it more yummy, but it may not be necessary.

Obvious solution? Too obvious? What am I missing?

[Ego]

Hehehe...

Current population: 7,200,000,000 ppl (everybody who thought the number was smaller than that, raise their hand)

Annual population growth: 49,000,000 ppl. (~ the population of Spain)

Weight: 140 x 49,000,000 = 6,860,000,000 lbs

Launch cost to LEO with Proton rocket: $2000/lbs

Launch capacity of Proton rocket: 46000 lbs

Annual number of launches: 1.5 million (400 each day)

Annual cost of launching surplus into LEO: 13.7 Trillion USD.

World GDP: 71 Trillion USD.

I'm ignoring the "minor" issue of needing, building, and launching space stations which can hold an additional 50 million people annually as well as expanding food production in space or launching that separately. Although obviously comparing apples and oranges, the current cost of ISS is 7.5 million USD/person/day in space.

I seem to remember Jenny's family is skilled at making catapults and other medieval devices that fling heavy weights over great distances. That makes it a problem of scale, no? I've got a few people I'd like to recommend as test-pilots.

[jennypenny]

I seem to remember Jenny's family is skilled at making catapults and other medieval devices that fling heavy weights over great distances. That makes it a problem of scale, no? I've got a few people I'd like to recommend as test-pilots.

We're good at building all kinds of devices that make people disappear.

@jacob--I understood how you were using the engineering triangle. I just don't see it as a good analogy in this case, but I can't think of another one at the moment. (I don't think in terms of analogies like many of you seem to.)

[jacob]

@DA - The engineering triangle is certainly not my idea. However, attempting to use it as a metaphor on practically all trade-offs might be ;-P

ERE is doable on a macroscale although if results are to be equitable, it would require everybody to be slightly more hardcore than me. While 6 billion people would find that rather easy, it's the remaing 1 billion who would need to redefine their standards.

However, even this thread contains some "I'd rather be dead than ..." notions about not giving up cherished values. At the first Earth summit in 1990, George Bush Sr famously said that "the American way of life is non-negotiable". And here we are 25 years later following three full-scale invasions to control strategic resources, ... and so on.

Fun fact: If the US lowered it's energy usage to European (EU) standards, it would once again become an oil exporter.

So why doesn't it?

If you want reasons, just ask any random person on this forum why they don't lower their expense level to under $10,000/year. Whatever they give as an excuse, there's your explanation as to why while it's doable on a macroscale, it won't be done until it's forced by external circumstances. It's as simple as that.

[Chad]

Hehehe...

Current population: 7,200,000,000 ppl (everybody who thought the number was smaller than that, raise their hand)

Annual population growth: 49,000,000 ppl. (~ the population of Spain)

Weight: 140 x 49,000,000 = 6,860,000,000 lbs

Launch cost to LEO with Proton rocket: $2000/lbs

Launch capacity of Proton rocket: 46000 lbs

Annual number of launches: 1.5 million (400 each day)

Annual cost of launching surplus into LEO: 13.7 Trillion USD.

World GDP: 71 Trillion USD.

I'm ignoring the "minor" issue of needing, building, and launching space stations which can hold an additional 50 million people annually as well as expanding food production in space or launching that separately. Although obviously comparing apples and oranges, the current cost of ISS is 7.5 million USD/person/day in space.

Well, first we need to build the space elevator powered by nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

[Devil's Advocate]

Jacob : Right, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not everyone can / will consent to redefining "standard of living". Sounds idiotic that this should be so for individuals, ditto macro scale, but that -- astonishingly -- is how most people are. I suppose.

The other "values" don't matter so much. Some within-limit nudge along all four parameters would help : (a) fewer children, (b) lower standard of living, (c) less freedom, more restrictions, and (d) new kick-ass tech. But none of these four is strictly necessary.

One could, for instance, have lots of kids as well as lots of freedom, and a great standard of living, sustainably. They'd only need to redefine "standard of living".

Actually I don't get it. I don't get why people find ERE so difficult. But yes, I get it that they do. And therefore, I suppose, the difficulty at the macro level as well.

[George the original one]

It's tough to kill dreams & aspirations.

Even the military "caste system" has mobility within the ranks. It's possible for a private to go through OCS, officer candidate school, and rise to a general.(*) In fact there are plenty of "rewards" for self-sacrifice.

The revolution begins the minute enough people are fed up with being told they cannot have what someone else has. As long as there is the possiblity, then they are likely to be placated, so any replacement system has to provide that promise.

(*) Military mobility works both ways, as demonstrated by my uncles. In the army, one was busted back to buck private from master sergeant for being AWOL (late back from a date with his eventual wife). Another, who graduated naval academy a decade before WWII, rose to submarine commander during the war.

[Ego]

From yesterday's NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/busin ... iness&_r=0

On current demographic and economic projections, food production would have to increase 70 percent by 2050. “Population growth is responsible for about one-half of increased food consumption,” said Tim Searchinger of the World Resources Institute. “The other half comes from higher incomes and richer diets.”

WRT the skewed male/female birth ratios in India and China, population figures are generally presented as live births per female. If they are using ultrasound to sex-select for males then this will create a persistent future decline in live births. Somehow that never occurred to me before. I always wondered why their governments seemed unmotivated to solve that particular problem.

[Chad]

On a related note, a population with significantly more men than women is a historical warning sign for war. It doesn't bode well that India and China are neighbors, and up and coming competitors.

[jacob]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... scientists

In reading this, the terminology is elites = those living in developed nations (you, the reader).

"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

This sounds relatively benign until we consider that sustainable levels are much below current levels. In other words, this here is a suggestion that a solution is reached by the (b) and (c) levers I defined above.

[jennypenny]

I complain to anyone who'll listen that I don't like the use of battle analogies and metaphors when dealing with illness. I think it forces the patient and their family to see death as losing and the patient as the loser. It never occurred to me that battle metaphors might play into medical heroics until Ego sent me this article http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... rs/374982/ .

I tend to dislike metaphors and analogies anyway, and try and strip them out of any work I'm editing. That might explain why I'm hesitant to discuss the population issue in metaphorical terms.