The idea that low birth rates are bad needs to go.

[Der Eisbär]

Not really. More grain mean more feed for livestock.

When I was a teenager, a commercial corn farmer pulled in 160 bushels an acre (bu/A). This was considered top quality fine Harvest.

In today's world, with all of the advances in seed technology, a farmer will be disappointed if they don't pull in 250 bu/A.

This increase came in a little over a decade.

Unless one is in the agricultural industry, it would be difficult to see that our advancements in agriculture are far outpacing any population growths.

The current beef and meat production system is depleting the water tables, destroying top soil and destroying the rain forest... no. More cattle/meat production is not sustainable as the current production isn't even sustainable.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

1) Privatizing the ocean will never happen. Ever. So that solution is not an option. What is a reality is the oceans dying.

It's the only workable solution to your concern.

People also said:
"The colonies of the British Empire will never be independent. Ever".

Times change and paradigms shift.

The state is just another Human Institution, it's edicts do not have the same objectivity as physics.

2) Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil

I would appreciate it if you would back up your assertions with a bit more rigor and effort then a single word and a link to Wikipedia.

3) Agriculture isn't the only thing that sustains life. As I said earlier, things like fuel are a finite resource.

Thankfully, some brilliant individual human intelligences invented things like nuclear power, and plant based ethanol.

Just like having only one customer is a sign of a troubled business, only having one fuel source is the sign of a troubled society.

These are good developments, because the totality of human life on this planet is decided by the conversion of fuel to energy.
If the environmentalists get their way, and somehow curb fuel consumption on the planet Earth, tens of millions of people will die. Areas will not get the economic development they would have otherwise gotten. Medicines, food, Aid, electricity, all of the amenities that would have otherwise made it to blighted areas, never will.

Clean water is another.

Agreed, luckily agriculture is growing more and more grain, using less and less water.

If you want to get serious about preserving freshwater, then we need to do a much better job of capturing freshwater in rivers before it makes its way into the ocean. Anyone unwilling to do this, is not serious about their concerns of lack of freshwater.

You can genetically engineer crops all day and double the yield of your land. It won't matter.

It matters to the person who got to eat that day, who otherwise wouldn't have.

We are in an unsustainable growth pattern. Technology is not keeping pace with our consumption rates.

By what standard is our growth pattern unsustainable?

 

[Liquid Smoke]

The global population boom is mostly already over. We should stabilize at around 11.

How is this conclusion been drawn? I agree it can't grow exponentially forever. Is the the stabilizing force war or famine or will (as Doug Stanhope puts it) fucking go out of style?

 

[Der Eisbär]

1) Privatizing the ocean will never happen. Ever. So that solution is not an option. What is a reality is the oceans dying.
2) Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil
3) Agriculture isn't the only thing that sustains life. As I said earlier, things like fuel are a finite resource. Clean water is another. You can genetically engineer crops all day and double the yield of your land. It won't matter. We are in an unsustainable growth pattern. Technology is not keeping pace with our consumption rates.

He refuses to look at the full spectrum of consumption, depletion and sustainability. He's only considering the inputs and asserting that those inputs can be increased even further, without accepting the current inputs/outputs are depleting resources faster than they can be replenished.

 

[Lead]

they been saying that every generation since Malthus. Each time figure goes up.

I mean, it's confirmable if you look at what countries have flatlined and apply similar estimates to the ones that are booming. The boom is a one-two generation event before the society is developed and realizes they don't need to birth 5 children to have 2 make it to adulthood. Malthus was only since 1800 so that statement isn't condemning really. The global boom happened in the 1900s and the result of it are still happening in the 2000s. Africa is the last piece before it flatens off.

Did India not drop in birthrates? They use to be the first complaint before Africa about how to handle this population crisis but then we realized they do the same thing every other country did.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

He refuses to look at the full spectrum of consumption, depletion and sustainability. He's only considering the inputs and asserting that those inputs can be increased even further, without accepting the current inputs/outputs are depleting resources faster than they can be replenished.

I address most of these concerns in post #122.

 

[Lead]

How is this conclusion been drawn? I agree it can't grow exponentially forever. Is the the stabilizing force war or famine or will (as Doug Stanhope puts it) fucking go out of style?

I don't believe War is factored in which could lower that projection if it's serious enough. They take data/ trends by country (birthrates, life expectancy, etc) to come to that projection. Part of it is hard to argue with cause some of the population increase is just a developing countries population filling in. In other words, a less developed country would have a mortality much higher in the 40s, 50s, 60s but a developed one doesn't. So what happens is the population increases for a short time while the birthdate remains the same. This could explain why people still think India has a high birthrate. They don't but their population is still filling in because their older generation is living longer like those in the US.

The one part of the projection you could argue is how fast the remaining undeveloped countries will develop and stop having 5+ kids. The question is misguided though because an undeveloped country that has 5 kids average usually loses 2-3 kids before adulthood so they aren't responsible for the crazy boom we see in the 1900s. It's when that undeveloped country begins making steps to develop that the child mortality rate substantially drops and the 5 kids end up making it to adulthood. Within a generation or so, the family notices this and just has less kids. So the fact Africa is booming right now is actually a signal that there is some development happening in those countries which will lead to a lowering birthrates like every country did before them. To think they won't do this seems like fear mongering and ignoring the data of every previous developed country.

This should help a lot with what I'm trying to summarize

The growth rate is slowing because of dropping birthrates in every country that had a boom while they were developing. Most countries developed in the 1900s which is why you see that sharp increase during that time. The remaining projection is going to be africas boom as well as different countries still filling in their older populations.

 

[goldennirvana]

That's speculation.

It's what the projections show.

The fact that they're population is growing already means they have developed somewhat as the mortality rate to adulthood has dropped. The next stage is society notices it and begins having less children. This happens in a generation or two. It happens with India already but most people assume their rate is still super high. There's not reason to think Africa won't do the same thing every other country has during their boom.

Too little, too soon. This massive population growth will result in a mass migration into Europe.

 

[goldennirvana]

If there are no whites left, then yes. Darwin.

Massive population growth also results in extinction. Your logic is stupid.

 

[Orgasmo]

Low birthrates are bad if social security and healthcare system depend on people contributing in to support the current status quo. A shrinking workforce also means slower economic growth, even going into the negative territory. There is no overpopulation problem in the first or even some second world countries. Even China is starting to peak out soon. The challenge is sustaining economic prosperity while providing old age security and healthcare to an aging population.

Africa and Middle East is a different beast altogether. They're the ones contributing to the growth of population, not us.

 

[Lead]

It's what the projections show.



Too little, too soon. This massive population growth will result in a mass migration into Europe.

No it isn't. You are assuming rates won't drop in Africa which the 11 projection does. Your assumptions are based on Africa doing something none of the other populations in the world did as they developed. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Lead]

Low birthrates are bad if social security and healthcare system depend on people contributing in to support the current status quo. A shrinking workforce also means slower economic growth, even going into the negative territory. There is no overpopulation problem in the first or even some second world countries. Even China is starting to peak out soon. The challenge is sustaining economic prosperity while providing old age security and healthcare to an aging population.

Africa and Middle East is a different beast altogether. They're the ones contributing to the growth of population, not us.

Yes, it's a two staged issue where we first have to aid the population stabilizing and then after have to figure out how to run a government working on flatlined population. The second thing is far scarier to me as both parties have always relied on increased population to cover shortfalls. It's much harder to make everything work when you don't have this and prior issues like debt suddenly become a bigger issue cause you will never grow out of it.

 

[Kframe]

There is nothing to address. That is not a problem. Already discussed in the op.

No it was not addressed in your trash op. How is it not a problem? Not having enough workers for the jobs available is a problem.

 

[Kframe]

I find these assertions absurd when you consider that A) crops are not the sole source of human calories, animal ag plays a huge role. B) your claims only work if the entire planet went vegan/vegetarian or dramatically decreased meat consumption.

Our vastly increased meat consumption is a recent thing. We can and should reduce our usage, and doing so would have no adverse effects.

 

[Kframe]

1) Privatizing the ocean will never happen. Ever. So that solution is not an option. What is a reality is the oceans dying.
2) Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil
3) Agriculture isn't the only thing that sustains life. As I said earlier, things like fuel are a finite resource. Clean water is another. You can genetically engineer crops all day and double the yield of your land. It won't matter. We are in an unsustainable growth pattern. Technology is not keeping pace with our consumption rates.

Why can't doubling the yield of his crops not help? By definition he doubled his output of food..

 

[Orgasmo]

Yes, it's a two staged issue where we first have to aid the population stabilizing and then after have to figure out how to run a government working on flatlined population. The second thing is far scarier to me as both parties have always relied on increased population to cover shortfalls. It's much harder to make everything work when you don't have this and prior issues like debt suddenly become a bigger issue cause you will never grow out of it.

Automation will alleviate some of the problems, but it brings another set of problems on its own. When a significant portion of the population is out of a job due to automation, how is society going to generate the necessary income to support consumption? The economy needs consumers having enough purchasing power to sustain itself. The next 50 years will bring the most significant change in terms of our lifestyle since the industrial revolution.

 

[no fat chicks]

wayyy to many ppl. 3 billion seems like a decent number

 

[Stoic1]

Why can't doubling the yield of his crops not help? By definition he doubled his output of food..

Because it takes more than food

 

[Kframe]

Because it takes more than food

not really

 

[MikeMcMann]

the problem is that gov't is a ponzee scheme that cannot sustain without adding new members.

Govt's never spend within their means. They are always spending money into the future assuming the economy will grow and much of that is predicated on growing the tax payer base.

If gov'ts would not spend money they did not have so readily then the population growth declining would not matter.