human race "will be extinct within 100 years," claims leading scientist

[bcbm]

article here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html).

seems like even if things did go to shit, we'd manage to hang on a little longer than that.

[Dimentio]

article here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html).

seems like even if things did go to shit, we'd manage to hang on a little longer than that.

No, humanity will survive, though if the ecosystems collapse, we will experience a reversion to warlordism, sustenance and a diminished population, as well as a new dark age which might last for a couple of thousand years until the ecosystems have regenerated or some dictator or mafia boss somewhere discovers habitable sectors in other parts of the galaxy.

[Broletariat]

The scientist in question is 95 years old, he's probably just saying this out of spite because he's going to die soon.

[Bilan]

100 years?
Really?

[9]

He is a microbiologist. I trust his opinion on this about as much as I'd trust a pharmacist's opinion on the big bang.

[Revy]

Hmm. I doubt it. In 100 years there will already be settlements on Mars. Humans probably have a long run ahead of us. But as long as we exist on one planet, we're sitting ducks for something like an asteroid impact, or something caused by us, like nuclear war. But that doesn't mean we will inevitably become extinct after such a catastrophe. Endangered, but not extinct....

I thought the overpopulation slant was inaccurate....I am not willing to put so much blame on overpopulation, merely because there is a lot more substance to the fact that there are pressure for resources. There are so many causes to Third World poverty that have nothing to do with population, but rather the fact that a lot of countries don't have control over their resources and economy.

There are ways of preventing famines and supplies from running out, creating more abundance, that requires a restructuring of global society, a revolution. Capitalism can't save us.

The article is right about climate change at least. Nobody is really doing anything about that. Lots of words, no action. Even things like the BP oil spill get no real action. The politicians that pander to green ideas are useless and refuse to live up to their promises.

[gorillafuck]

I doubt that.

[Revy]

The scientist in question is 95 years old, he's probably just saying this out of spite because he's going to die soon.

Some people sign up to get their heads frozen in liquid nitrogen after they die (this is what the Alcor Life Extension Foundation does), in the hopes that in some distant future they will be revived.

But since there is no evidence that someone who has been dead for centuries would be able to be revived, evidence that their technique at preserving human heads can keep the brain's information intact, or evidence that people in the future would actually remember to revive anyone (or want to), there really isn't any point to give a fortune away for that pipe dream (the costs are insanely high)

[NGNM85]

Of course one can only speculate. Clearly, there is no physical law or what-have-you that makes extinction unavoidable. However, extrapolating based on past trends and current events, I'd say (unfortunately) this is a very credible hypothesis. Looking at this BP spill and what's happening to the biosphere, the 'war on terror', frightening economic fluctuations, etc., it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Extinction has always been a major possibility, as it is for all species. They either adapt and change, ultimately, becoming something else, or they die off. Now the human species is sufficiently technologically advanced that we have long passed the ability to brig about our own extinction, with time the ease with which we can annihilate ourselves grows and grows. At present, we represent the greatest threat to our own existence. I wish I had something really uplifting to follow that up with. The good news is the bad news; it's up to us, but it's also up to us. The overriding question is; "Are humans intelligent and responsible enough to make the right choices?"

[9]

Of course one can only speculate. Clearly, there is no physical law or what-have-you that makes extinction unavoidable. However, extrapolating based on past trends and current events, I'd say (unfortunately) this is a very credible hypothesis. Looking at this BP spill and what's happening to the biosphere, the 'war on terror', frightening economic fluctuations, etc., it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Extinction has always been a major possibility, as it is for all species. They either adapt and change, ultimately, becoming something else, or they die off. Now the human species is sufficiently technologically advanced that we have long passed the ability to brig about our own extinction, with time the ease with which we can annihilate ourselves grows and grows. At present, we represent the greatest threat to our own existence. I wish I had something really uplifting to follow that up with.

Have you read the article, though? He is saying it will be the product of overpopulation - of a "population explosion". Obviously the annihilation of the human race is a possibility today with modern warfare. It is a horrifying thing to think about, but it is most certainly a possibility. That is not what this guy is talking about, though; he is talking about overpopulation. And that is why I think he is full of shit.


The good news is the bad news; it's up to us, but it's also up to us. The overriding question is; "Are humans intelligent and responsible enough to make the right choices?"I think the question is much more whether or not there will be another possibility for international revolution. If capitalism is triumphant, it isn't a question of humans being intelligent and responsible at all, since the only people with the capability to make serious changes with regard to warfare and other threats will continue to be a tiny minority who will continue to be driven or constrained by the profit-motive, no matter the ultimate consequences for humanity, regardless of how "intelligent" and "responsible" the vast majority of the human race is. The fate of the species hinges entirely on the question of overthrowing capitalism.
I have to admit that I'm pretty horrified by the possibility that we've missed our chance - that the early part of the 20th century was the window and as close as we came, we didn't get through, and the possibility may never return. But obviously I have to hope that I'm wrong and try to put it out of my mind.

I should add, though, that the opinion of the microbiologist in the OP does appear to be shared by other reliable, impartial figures:



Originally Posted by the article in the OP
Professor Fenner's chilling prediction echoes recent comments by Prince Charles who last week warned of ‘monumental problems’ if the world’s population continues to grow at such a rapid pace.lol

[ComradeOm]

This clown is late to the party. Predictions of a Malthusian catastrophe have been commonplace since, well, Malthus' time. They've also been universally wrong. One of the most persistent offenders has been Paul Ehrlich who predicted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) in 1968 that hundreds of millions would die of starvation in the 70s and 80s. Can't say I noticed anything like that


Looking at this BP spill and what's happening to the biosphere, the 'war on terror', frightening economic fluctuations, etc., it doesn't paint a very pretty pictureHow is any one of those events going to destroy the human race in the coming century? Or even if you take them all together?

Really, you've just listed the last few big media stories (a decade ago you've have surely mentioned the 'war on drugs', a decade before that it would be cancer or rappers) and mixed them up into a gloomy cocktail. This is exactly what the media does to create an atmosphere of fear, and good sales for them, by playing up imaginary or slight risks into major doomsday scenarios. Although not they would claim that the 'war on terror' is a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Ironically the one scenario that can lead to the destruction of the human race in the short-medium term - ie, nuclear warfare - is almost entirely ignored by the mass media today. It is no longer sexy enough for the headlines

Dan Gardner had a good chapter on this sort of scaremongering, and directly addresses the overpopulation issue, in his Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Overpopulation will not cause us to become extinct - in a worst case scenario lots of people will die as the population exceeds the planet's capability to feed it all, but that will result in a reduction of numbers, not an extinction.

Neither will climate change cause us to become extinct, although again in a worst case scenario people will die until the world's agriculture adjusts to the new climate.

We've survived population reductions before. If I remember correctly, the human race was once reduced to a mere 10,000 individuals.

In terms of extinction, what worries me the most is a major asteroid impact, or possibly a supervolcano eruption.

Also, typical Daily Wail scaremongering.

[Quail]

Over-population could become a bigger problem if consumption rates in poorer parts of the world were to rise and match those of, say, the US. Excessive consumption and unsustainable farming are incredibly damaging to the envirionment and a massive waste of resources, but the situation is unlikely to change under capitalism.
I don't know whether we could be extinct in 100 years. It seems like there's a bit of scaremongering going on here, but I also don't think people should be so quick to dismiss the potential impact of ecological disasters. Isn't it better to take them too seriously, and limit the damage, than to not take them seriously enough?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Over-population could become a bigger problem if consumption rates in poorer parts of the world were to rise and match those of, say, the US. Excessive consumption and unsustainable farming are incredibly damaging to the envirionment and a massive waste of resources, but the situation is unlikely to change under capitalism.
I don't know whether we could be extinct in 100 years. It seems like there's a bit of scaremongering going on here, but I also don't think people should be so quick to dismiss the potential impact of ecological disasters. Isn't it better to take them too seriously, and limit the damage, than to not take them seriously enough?

Environmental problems should most definately be taken seriously and acted upon, but I think scaremongering and hyperbole is counter-productive because:

1) It encourages passivity. Why do anything if the world is fucked?

2) It attracts apocalyptic nutballs.

3) Some people may look around and, from their point of view, not see the world going to Hell in a handbasket, and assume that all environmental problems are scare stories cooked up unwashed hippies who want to force everyone to wear sandals and eat tofu.

4) It's a shit way of spreading awareness. I think people have become used to being told every day that there's a potential disaster around the corner.

[Quail]

Environmental problems should most definately be taken seriously and acted upon, but I think scaremongering and hyperbole is counter-productive because:

1) It encourages passivity. Why do anything if the world is fucked?

2) It attracts apocalyptic nutballs.

3) Some people may look around and, from their point of view, not see the world going to Hell in a handbasket, and assume that all environmental problems are scare stories cooked up unwashed hippies who want to force everyone to wear sandals and eat tofu.

4) It's a shit way of spreading awareness. I think people have become used to being told every day that there's a potential disaster around the corner.

I don't think that scaremongering is a good way of raising awareness. I didn't say that. I do think though, that some people take environmental problems too lightly.
I think that the best way of spreading awareness is to explain what the problem is, why it's happening and what people can do about it. Trying to shock or scare people just ends up desensitising them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think that scaremongering is a good way of raising awareness. I didn't say that.

I know. Sorry if I did no make that clear; but when journalists report on this sort of subject, they seem to have an irrepressible urge to do their best to exaggerate and scare people.


I do think though, that some people take environmental problems too lightly.

I think that's due to the reasons I have outlined above.


I think that the best way of spreading awareness is to explain what the problem is, why it's happening and what people can do about it. Trying to shock or scare people just ends up desensitising them.

Indeed.

[ComradeOm]

I don't know whether we could be extinct in 100 yearsI'll tell you then - we won't. Barring a nuclear war or freakishly unlikely asteroid strike (or something completely unforeseen, but that's best left to science fiction writers) the human race will still be around in a century. Period. Overpopulation will not kill us off and "environmental problems" do not work on such short timeframes. So relax

[Quail]

I'll tell you then - we won't. Barring a nuclear war or freakishly unlikely asteroid strike (or something completely unforeseen, but that's best left to science fiction writers) the human race will still be around in a century. Period. Overpopulation will not kill us off and "environmental problems" do not work on such short timeframes. So relax

Overpopulation alone won't kill us off completely. If there aren't enough resources then our numbers will fall and then recover again, as the numbers of most species do. But overpopulation and overconsumption could potentially set us up for a disaster that may wipe us out in the longer term. I don't think that we will be extinct in 100 years (the "I don't know" was meant to sound doubtful, but that kind of stuff doesn't tend to come across online) but we could definitely face some hardship. Just because an issue isn't imminently disasterous, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimise the harm for when it does become more of a threat.

[ComradeOm]

But overpopulation and overconsumption could potentially set us up for a disaster that may wipe us out in the longer termNo, it won't. I can say this with some confidence because overpopulation has never been a problem. Outside of the imaginations of Malthusians at least. As I've said above, for over two centuries people have been predicting an imminent catastrophe (or 'population bomb') that has yet to occur. All talk of overpopulation misses one fundamental fact - as the population increases then so too does society's ability to provide for itself. Overpopulation 'advocates' assume that a society's forces of production remain constant as population increases*. The reality is that the technology and methodology of agricultural production is constantly increasing to supply the population (of which the best example is probably the Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution)). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this process is going to end and plenty of reason to think that even with current techniques (such as GMOs) there is plenty of room for improved yields. So overpopulation is simply not a problem

As for overconsumption, I do not recognise this as a problem. I firmly believe that improving living standards in the Third World is a 'Good Thing' and anyone who suggests otherwise can go jump of a bridge. Neither this nor overpopulation have the potential to generate a disaster of apocalyptic proportions

*Leading to laughable conclusions such as the assertion made during the 1960s that India could not support 200 million people

[9]

In terms of extinction, what worries me the most is a major asteroid impact, or possibly a supervolcano eruption.

Any reason you don't mention nuclear war? It seems like a much greater possibility than either of these scenarios.

[Quail]

No, it won't. I can say this with some confidence because overpopulation has never been a problem. Outside of the imaginations of Malthusians at least. As I've said above, for over two centuries people have been predicting an imminent catastrophe (or 'population bomb') that has yet to occur. All talk of overpopulation misses one fundamental fact - as the population increases then so too does society's ability to provide for itself. Overpopulation 'advocates' assume that a society's forces of production remain constant as population increases*. The reality is that the technology and methodology of agricultural production is constantly increasing to supply the population (of which the best example is probably the Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution)). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this process is going to end and plenty of reason to think that even with current techniques (such as GMOs) there is plenty of room for improved yields. So overpopulation is simply not a problem

As for overconsumption, I do not recognise this as a problem. I firmly believe that improving living standards in the Third World is a 'Good Thing' and anyone who suggests otherwise can go jump of a bridge. Neither this nor overpopulation have the potential to generate a disaster of apocalyptic proportions

*Leading to laughable conclusions such as the assertion made during the 1960s that India could not support 200 million people

The overconsumption is the word I would put more emphasis on, and I do see it as a problem. If the current population were all to consume excessively and irresponsibly (and at the moment, they don't), then we would have a problem, without adding a population increase into the mix. There just wouldn't be the resources to support that. I don't dispute that as the population grows, we develop better ways of providing for everyone, but the more we have to produce, the more resources are consumed (fuel, water, space, etc) and the more the planet is polluted, for example through emissions or through excessive use of fertilisers.

What needs to happen is that people become more conscious of the environmental impacts of their lifestyles and try to change the way that things are produced (although this does seem unlikely under a capitalist system), so that it would be possible for everyone to have decent standard of living.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Any reason you don't mention nuclear war? It seems like a much greater possibility than either of these scenarios.

A global nuclear war would kill billions, but Africa, South America and Australia would survive. As for a nuclear winter, that's a threat that's been hugely exaggerated.

I don't think such a war is likely in the current global political climate, although there may be a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, or in Korea.

[Bilan]

This is off topic, but why would those continents survive?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is off topic, but why would those continents survive?

There aren't many nukes based in or being pointed at those continents.

[Sasha]

There aren't many nukes based in or being pointed at those continents.


you see thats why we need proliferation, cant have the aussies secretly trigger an nucluar war so they can rule the world after.

[Technocrat]

Overpopulation is a serious problem. We can probably only sustainably support 1-2 billion people with a comfortable quality of life. Thus, we are already in overshoot. However, we could reduce our number through increased standards of living and better access to birth control. The population growth problem is mainly confined to third world countries. I don't think the human race will go extinct from overpopulation. This almost never happens. Instead, when the population exceeds the carrying capacity of an area, the population is reduced to the carrying capacity or below it, through starvation and fighting over the remaining resources. Overpopulation hardly ever results in the total extinction of the entire species. There are other things which could result in our extinction, like a gamma ray burst or an asteroid impact, which makes it imperative that we settle other parts of the galaxy ASAP if we are interested in the long term continuity of the human species. Luckily, recent advances in telescope technology greatly increase our chances of finding potentially habitable worlds within the next few decades.

[NGNM85]

Have you read the article, though? He is saying it will be the product of overpopulation - of a "population explosion".

I didn't actually read the article. I was just talking about the likelihood of human extinction.


Obviously the annihilation of the human race is a possibility today with modern warfare. It is a horrifying thing to think about, but it is most certainly a possibility.

Absolutely. We came within a hair's breadth in 1962.


That is not what this guy is talking about, though; he is talking about overpopulation. And that is why I think he is full of shit.

Overpopulation is certainly a problem. I don't see it being the end of us, in and of itself, but it could make a substantial contribution. Increasing political strife, the spread of disease, pollution, etc. In any case I think an extinction scenario would be the culmination of several trends or events, rather than one single phenomena.


I think the question is much more whether or not there will be another possibility for international revolution.

I tend to be pretty skeptical about revolutions, at least in the sense I think you're talking about.


If capitalism is triumphant, it isn't a question of humans being intelligent and responsible at all, since the only people with the capability to make serious changes with regard to warfare and other threats will continue to be a tiny minority who will continue to be driven or constrained by the profit-motive, no matter the ultimate consequences for humanity, regardless of how "intelligent" and "responsible" the vast majority of the human race is. The fate of the species hinges entirely on the question of overthrowing capitalism.

The issue, then, is are the masses intelligent and responsible enough to prevent such an occurance.


I have to admit that I'm pretty horrified by the possibility that we've missed our chance - that the early part of the 20th century was the window and as close as we came, we didn't get through, and the possibility may never return. But obviously I have to hope that I'm wrong and try to put it out of my mind.

I think we all hope for the best. We'll see....

[NGNM85]

How is any one of those events going to destroy the human race in the coming century? Or even if you take them all together?

It's not that far-fetched. The 'War on Terror' includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and impacts the whole region, and, by extension, the whole world. Pollution and climate change have gotten to such a state that we are making this planet uninhabitable for life.


Really, you've just listed the last few big media stories (a decade ago you've have surely mentioned the 'war on drugs', a decade before that it would be cancer or rappers) and mixed them up into a gloomy cocktail. This is exactly what the media does to create an atmosphere of fear, and good sales for them, by playing up imaginary or slight risks into major doomsday scenarios. Although not they would claim that the 'war on terror' is a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Ironically the one scenario that can lead to the destruction of the human race in the short-medium term - ie, nuclear warfare - is almost entirely ignored by the mass media today. It is no longer sexy enough for the headlines

Dan Gardner had a good chapter on this sort of scaremongering, and directly addresses the overpopulation issue, in his Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear

You should also read "Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. I'm very much aware of the state of American media. However, you're either misconstruing or misunderstanding what I'm saying. Comparing the 'War on Terror' to gangster rap, or the 'War on Drugs' is preposterous. There's no comparison.

The most disturbing implication of the 'War on Terror' is that it could very well precipitate nuclear war. Violent economic instability can also lead to political instability and violence, so can ecological devastation, in addition to reducing availible food, clean water, etc.

[Vanguard1917]

What ComradeOm has said.

Such Malthusian predictions have been around for around 200 years and they have always proven to be completely and utterly false. There is not a single Malthusian prediction which has been shown to be correct by actual developments. That's quite a theoretical failure by any measure.

There is no reason to believe that humanity will have died off in hundred years as a result of its growth. But i hope Malthusians and their rotten beliefs are made extinct long before then.

[Technocrat]

What ComradeOm has said.

Such Malthusian predictions have been around for around 200 years and they have always proven to be completely and utterly false. There is not a single Malthusian prediction which has been shown to be correct by actual developments. That's quite a theoretical failure by any measure.

There is no reason to believe that humanity will have died off in hundred years as a result of its growth. But i hope Malthusians and their rotten beliefs are made extinct long before then.

Malthus was wrong because he assumed that population would grow exponentially while food production would only increase linearly.

This, however, is a different claim than simply stating "resources are finite; therefore the amount of people we can support with a given per-capita rate of resource consumption is finite".

Even renewable resources are "finite" because there is only so much that can be produced at any given time.

A simple example would be a river. The river is a renewable resource because it is constantly replenishing itself. However, suppose you had a human settlement using the river. If the rate of consumption by the settlement exceeds the rate at which the river replenishes itself, then the river will dry up.

[howblackisyourflag]

The last century was marked by world wars with massive destruction, and it almost came to nuclear war. The threat of nuclear war stil exists, and along with environmental destruction, there's no reason to think that the coming century will be any less violent than the one that came before it. I wouldnt just assume that this man is correct, I think he's going a bit overboard, but there is a large subset of scientists who say that the concensus on global warming is wrong, and that the results of it on humanity are actually going to be worse than what the majority of them are saying. For example, an Australian scientist, Clive Hamilton, recently pblished a book entitled, "Requiem for a Species". Things are almost definitely going to get uncomfortable for us all, but there's just no way to say how or when exactly, if it even happens in our lifetime at all...

[Vanguard1917]

This, however, is a different claim than simply stating "resources are finite; therefore the amount of people we can support with a given per-capita rate of resource consumption is finite".

Something being finite does not mean that it's in short supply.

What is not finite is human ingenuity and our ability to use resources in more and more imaginative and resourceful ways. That is what the Malthusians have always dismissed and have thus invariably been proven to be wrong, time and again.

Malthusians have only ever speculated -- they've never actually been right.



A simple example would be a river. The river is a renewable resource because it is constantly replenishing itself. However, suppose you had a human settlement using the river. If the rate of consumption by the settlement exceeds the rate at which the river replenishes itself, then the river will dry up.


Not with proper planning and development it won't. Any shortage of water today is a social problem related to povery and underdevelopment. That is why it is usually poor countries which experience it. It's not caused by there being too many people.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In terms of extinction, what worries me the most is a major asteroid impact, or possibly a supervolcano eruption.

What worries me most is 2012.

In all seriousness, though, the extinction of humanity would end all of us stressing out about how we're gonna liberate the human race. Weirdly enough that's what I thought when I saw that movie The Road; as in, "Wow, what a fucked up future, but hey, at least there's no more crap about who owns the means of production anymore!"

[CountryKid]

Doesn't bother me.


I'll be dead. :lol:

[Glenn Beck]

Even a nuclear war would have to be pretty huge to cause human extinction within a century. I would imagine there would be survivors scattered around that could scrape together at least some kind of miserable existence for a few generations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The cannibal mode of production would overtake capitalism.

[Klaatu]

No, humanity will survive, though if the ecosystems collapse, we will experience a reversion to warlordism, sustenance and a diminished population, as well as a new dark age which might last for a couple of thousand years until the ecosystems have regenerated or some dictator or mafia boss somewhere discovers habitable sectors in other parts of the galaxy.

Sounds like "free enterprise capitalism" (we're half way there already!) :crying:

[Technocrat]

Not with proper planning and development it won't. Any shortage of water today is a social problem related to povery and underdevelopment. That is why it is usually poor countries which experience it. It's not caused by there being too many people.

Okay, but that is not what I said. I merely said that if the rate of consumption (of the river) exceeds the rate at which the river replenishes itself, then it will eventually run dry. Or you could use the example of a well - maybe that's easier. There have been lots of wells throughout history that have run dry because the rate of consumption exceeded the rate at which the well was replenished, but the well itself is still a renewable resource.

Okay, different example maybe?

Let's say we build some solar panels. There is a finite amount of energy that we can get at any given time no matter the number of solar panels, because there is a finite number of solar panels at any given time. That's what is meant by a "finite resource". It doesn't necessarily mean there is a shortage (but it can).

[Invincible Summer]

What worries me most is 2012.

In all seriousness, though, the extinction of humanity would end all of us stressing out about how we're gonna liberate the human race. Weirdly enough that's what I thought when I saw that movie The Road; as in, "Wow, what a fucked up future, but hey, at least there's no more crap about who owns the means of production anymore!"


I would also not have to purchase any more Fallout games

[Vanguard1917]

Okay, but that is not what I said. I merely said that if the rate of consumption (of the river) exceeds the rate at which the river replenishes itself, then it will eventually run dry.

Well, obviously. But what's the point you're making, other than simply pointing out that the Earth's resources are mathematically-speaking finite?



There have been lots of wells throughout history that have run dry because the rate of consumption exceeded the rate at which the well was replenished


Yes, and those lucky enough to live in economically advanced countries no longer depend on wells for water. This is a great example of human ingenuity overcoming what may previously have been thought to be a limitation which could not be overcome.

[Lampang]

Jesus fucking Christ. The Daily Mail. You can't escape that poisonous fucking rag anywhere, can you.

I think the chance of humanity disappearing in 100 years is vanishingly small but that's not to say that the chance of humanity's numbers declining vastly in 100 years is vanishingly small. In fact, I'd say that there's a pretty good chance that climate change will set in motion events which make that a very probable outcome, if not within a century then within a few.

As for Malthus being wrong, well, yes and no. It is true that world-wide famine hasn't happened but localised famine has been common in human history and, for example, had it not been for the green revolution, it's likely that India would have experienced wide-spread famine in the 60s but recently, increases in agricultural output have levelled and, in some places, gone into decline. This is going to be be made massively worse by climate change (either in the form of heat stress or in water shortages). Whether or not humanity will be able to get around these problems is an open question but when growing population is combined with changes in consumption patterns, desertification, top soil loss, peak oil, water stress, climate change, mono-cropping (just look at how vulnerable world wheat production is to UG99), ecological collapse, etc. etc., the outlook doesn't look great.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

6.7 billion people and growing, every single one dead in the next 100 years? That would mean 67 million people dying every year from now until 2110 and nobody reproducing. Sounds like a piece of crap, unless this guy has actually invented a working crystal ball.


Jesus fucking Christ. The Daily Mail. You can't escape that poisonous fucking rag anywhere, can you.

My thoughts too. Daily Fail takes pride in scaremongering

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI&playnext_from=TL&videos=-wqXiBB5Nb0

[Technocrat]

Well, obviously. But what's the point you're making, other than simply pointing out that the Earth's resources are mathematically-speaking finite?



Yes, and those lucky enough to live in economically advanced countries no longer depend on wells for water. This is a great example of human ingenuity overcoming what may previously have been thought to be a limitation which could not be overcome.

You are treating human ingenuity like it's a constant, when it's a variable. That's my point. Yes, there are many examples of humans overcoming environmental challenges and limited resources with their ingenuity. There are also examples to the contrary. Otherwise, every single civilization that has ever existed would be successful (would still exist). Since we know from history that some civilizations did indeed collapse, we can conclude that some of them collapsed because they failed to adapt to changing environmental circumstances or changing resource availability, because the only possible causes for a civilization's collapse are either external (they were conquered or otherwise defeated by factors beyond their control) or internal (they failed to adapt to changing circumstances). Today the island of Crete is completely deforested, but it wasn't always that way. The Egyptians exploited Crete for its wood until it was all gone. When it was gone, they could no longer fuel their forges and make metal weapons and armor. This was the beginning of the end for that particular empire.

There are examples of humans adapting. There are also examples of cultures destroying themselves by outstripping their food supply. Easter Island and the Maya immediately come to mind. The simple fact is, humans can either adapt to changing circumstances, or they can continue to keep cutting down more trees until almost everyone dies. I suggest you read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" if you want to learn more about the reasons why some societies adapt while others fail.

[Vanguard1917]

There are examples of humans adapting. There are also examples of cultures destroying themselves by outstripping their food supply.

There is no reason to believe that human population will outstrip food supply. In reality, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth, and food shortages, where they exist, have social causes. You're engaging in doom-mongering predictions and speculation about the future, not in anything factual. And in doing so you're letting capitalism off the hook by blaming the human masses themselves for social problems.

[Vanguard1917]

As for Malthus being wrong, well, yes and no. It is true that world-wide famine hasn't happened but localised famine has been common in human history.

Yes, of course. But, crucially, were those famines caused by there being too many people or by food shortages caused by social factors? If your answer is the latter, that means you have (correctly) rejected the immensely reactionary Malthusian logic which blames the masses themselves, and not the system, for their poverty.

[Lampang]

It's hardly reactionary to point out the existence of resource limits. Resource limits depend to a fair degree on the level of technological development (combined with population levels and resource use) so they are clearly a moving target but it's unarguable that they exist. Whether or not any particular problem can be attributed to resource limits or to other factors (for non-historical cases, capitalist production and distribution obviously being a major one) is debatable. For example, the sinks into which we can dispose the waste products of industrial production are limited in size and however production is organised, there is a cap to how much carbon the atmosphere, earth and land can deal with. The profit motive, the drive to externalise the costs of production and consumption, conceptions of the commons, etc which reign under capitalism make it unlikely that this problem will be dealt with but even if the world revolution came about tomorrow and all production were organised along the lines of <insert favoured technique here>, this unpleasant fact would still remain; Capitalism is probably the worst possible system for dealing with resource constraints but that doesn't imply that any other system will automatically overcome them.

That said, the Malthusian line about the arithmetic growth in food production and the geometric growth in population is clearly rubbish and scare stories about the "population bomb" are used widely by reactionary cocks (it's hardly an accident that this story came from The Daily Hate) to blame the poor for the crimes of the rich.

[Technocrat]

There is no reason to believe that human population will outstrip food supply. In reality, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth, and food shortages, where they exist, have social causes. You're engaging in doom-mongering predictions and speculation about the future, not in anything factual. And in doing so you're letting capitalism off the hook by blaming the human masses themselves for social problems.

Could you please provide a source to back up your claim that "in reality, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth"

Could you also provide a source for the claim that "food shortages, where they exist, have social causes."

I mean, are we to just take your word for it regarding these wildly presumptuous claims?

Here is my source:


"...To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third. The black plague during the 14th Century claimed approximately one-third of the European population (and more than half of the Asian and Indian populations), plunging the continent into a darkness from which it took them nearly two centuries to emerge.41 None of this research considers the impact of declining fossil fuel production. The authors of all of these studies believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Quite possibly, a U.S. population reduction of one-third will not be effective for sustainability; the necessary reduction might be in excess of one-half. And, for sustainability, global population will have to be reduced from the current 6.32 billion people42 to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over two-thirds. The end of this decade could see spiraling food prices without relief. And the coming decade could see massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before by the human race...."

(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html))

Ignoring the above, the simple fact of the matter is that with any given set of technology, there is only so much food that the world can produce. This means that the number of people that can be supported is limited and is determined by the available technology. Population size does not determine food production technology, it's the other way around: food production technology determines population size.

[Demogorgon]

There is no reason to believe that human population will outstrip food supply. In reality, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth, and food shortages, where they exist, have social causes. You're engaging in doom-mongering predictions and speculation about the future, not in anything factual. And in doing so you're letting capitalism off the hook by blaming the human masses themselves for social problems.
I think this is quite an important point. If you examine major famines you will often find there was enough food around to have avoided it or at least enough food could have been brought in readily enough. Certainly since the invention of railways physical access to food has not been a problem in of itself. A case in point is the Bengal Famine of 1943, an event that killed three million (and if you allow me an aside, never seems to be brought up by those who cry crocodile tears for Ukraine, but I digress). The tragedy there is that production of food that year was greater than in previous years but economic factors led to it going to waste or being exported or whatever. The nature of capitalism meant people starved when there was no need for it.

And that leads me into the core point and that is the problems associated with over population are not caused by the existence of people, they are caused by poverty. There are certain other factors of course, the world's population is overly concentrated in certain regions, but that is nothing open borders wouldn't fix given a few years. The main cause is poverty. The economic system preventing food going where it is needed is one example, however the way level of human development affects all sorts of other things is another. It is a simple fact for instance that while we only have one planet on, we cannot cope with infinite population growth, but that is only a problem due to inequality and poverty. In prosperous societies the birth rate is naturally lower and populations stay steady. In some cases they fall or the average age gets too high, but again that is nothing that can't be solved by bringing in younger people from areas where the birth rate is higher.

In short the solution to this is a change to the economic system this world lives in, both in the short run to make sure food goes where it is needed rather than wasted and also because it will naturally lead to a stable population.

I believe that under socialism the biggest problem we might actually face is a population decline if constantly rising prosperity continues to cause a lower birth rate, but doubtless solutions will be found to that too.

[Demogorgon]

Could you please provide a source to back up your claim that "in reality, there is more than enough food to feed everyone on earth"

Could you also provide a source for the claim that "food shortages, where they exist, have social causes."

I mean, are we to just take your word for it regarding these wildly presumptuous claims?

Here is my source:


Ignoring the above, the simple fact of the matter is that with any given set of technology, there is only so much food that the world can produce. This means that the number of people that can be supported is limited and is determined by the available technology. Population size does not determine food production technology, it's the other way around: food production technology determines population size.
How precisely do you intend to achieve this suspiciously genocidal suggestion of a two thirds population reduction?

[Lampang]

If you examine major famines you will often find there was enough food around to have avoided it or at least enough food could have been brought in readily enough. That's not the case for the great famines of mediaeval Europe. There just wasn't enough food. As always, the poor suffered disproportionately but that doesn't mean that famine was a result exclusively of their poverty. Obviously population levels were significantly lower than they are now (though by rather less than most imagine) so technological developments have meant that resource limits have been pushed outward but there's nothing necessary about that process and in fact it's crazy to think that this can continue indefinitely. As I said in an earlier post, the suicidally reckless disregard for the environment which has characterised the post-war period means that there is a very good chance the the advances in agricultural production which we've seen, especially since the 60s, will go into reverse. If we see warming of 4 or 5 degrees (and I think that's a likely outcome), major crop yields (wheat, rice, etc) may well fall by between 10 and 30%. At the same time, population is going to hit at least 9 billion, food consumption habits are changing rapidly (wealth leads to lower population growth but massively increased meat consumption), and many of the advances in the green revolution are facing very severe challenges. This includes the fact that much of the increase in production has been brought about by drawing down fossil aquifers and by very poorly managed irrigation which has waterlogged and salinated huge areas of land. On top of this, there's limited room for extra irrigation and climate change means, in addition to reduced crop yields, that much productive land will be lost to rises in sea levels and there's a good chance that ocean acidification will start to affect dangerously marine food chains (already under massive threat from the collapse in fish stocks). There's more but it's not really necessary to catalogue all our ecological crimes. And all the time, the clock is ticking louder and louder. Some/much/most/all of this may be/might be/is amenable to solutions but I don't think it's wise to say simply "it's all capitalism's fault so if we change to a socialist/communist system everything will be fine." Much of it is capitalism's fault but, as someone said earlier, there are plenty of examples of societies which collapsed and which had nothing to do with capitalism and, in any case, however hard you try and however much you want it, it's not always possible to unbreak an egg.

[hammer&sickle]

to say simply "it's all capitalism's fault so if we change to a socialist/communist system everything will be fine." .

Humans made huge advances under capitalism..the immense innovative dynamics of capitalism changed the world. At the same time much ecological destruction has occured under capitalism..this destruction will continue unless humans learn to live cooperatively..socialism. I'm not saying socialism will solve all the world's problems and everything will be fine overnight but it will be the first step in the right direction.

Capitalism has run its course, the technological advances it made possible cannot be fully developed unless the world's people embrace socialism. The people won't embrace socialism on their own.. political revolution occurs when something new is brought into the equation. It is our task as revolutionaries to bring to the people a new vision..a vision of a safe and cultured life, made possible under socialism, for ALL of the world's people.

[t.shonku]

You don't need to be a biologist to tell that.............!!!!!!!!!!!.
If corporate capitalism is not stopped they will empty all of earth's resources and destroy the human race only global communism can save this planet.
Corporate Capitalism is a disease and we communist's are the cure

[incogweedo]

If civilization collapses? I'm prepared, i've got everything i need to know from Fallout3 :thumbup1:

[incogweedo]

only global communism can save this planet.


Well... its not the planet thats in danger, it's us. Even after we leave, the planet will be here. within 1 million years of our disappearance, almost every trace of human existence will probably be gone. Meh, maybe besides some Styrofoam. The Earth cleanses itself, it's capable of doing so. So the planet will be fine, we're the ones who are going to die off someday.

and also, "only" global communism can save it? Well i wouldn't say only, but it's probably our best bet, either that or anarchism.


youtube (dot) com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw -- Georg Carlin on saving the Earth

[Glenn Beck]

How precisely do you intend to achieve this suspiciously genocidal suggestion of a two thirds population reduction?

Why, unspecified voluntary measures of course!

Good old unspecified voluntary measures.

[9]

haha

[ComradeOm]

VG, this is your job ;)


The overconsumption is the word I would put more emphasis on, and I do see it as a problem. If the current population were all to consume excessively and irresponsibly (and at the moment, they don't), then we would have a problem, without adding a population increase into the mix. There just wouldn't be the resources to support thatNot under capitalism certainly. Thankfully, for some, the problem will never arise under imperialism. Which is a glimpse at the base racism/puritanism implicit in so much environmentalist thought - its either, 'Oh my, wouldn't it be terrible if the huddled masses in the Third World actually got to enjoy Western lifestyles!', or 'We need to reduce the living standards of our working class'. Either way its deeply reactionary

All of which is a moot point given that even 'overconsumption' is not going to destroy humanity in a century


What needs to happen is that people become more conscious of the environmental impacts of their lifestyles and try to change the way that things are produced (although this does seem unlikely under a capitalist system), so that it would be possible for everyone to have decent standard of living.Socialism does not equal puritanism and it will almost certainly entail people consuming more as living standards rise. There are of course huge potential environmental savings from a more efficient economy but this is not the same as 'changing lifestyles'


It's not that far-fetched. The 'War on Terror' includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and impacts the whole region, and, by extension, the whole world. Pollution and climate change have gotten to such a state that we are making this planet uninhabitable for life. And how are either of these going to curtail mankind's time in the sun in the next century? Climate change, even if we take it at face value, works in centuries and millennia. As for the 'War on Terror', one could construct a highly implausible and fantastic chain of events that begins with the invasion of Iraq and ends with global nuclear war. This is not likely and there are far more plausible scenarios for nuclear conflict (such as India/Pakistan). Even in this regard its pretty laughable to talk of some doomladen scenario (with the BP spill, global warming, and the 'War on Terror') when Earth really was on the brink of immediate destruction a mere two decades ago


That's not the case for the great famines of mediaeval Europe. There just wasn't enough foodWell yes, you'll find that a lack of food is a surprisingly common feature of famines. You'll also find that the rich rarely starve

Its also worth noting, and I'm not sure this is directly related to your point, that no famine, certainly none that I'm aware of, has ever been caused by overpopulation. Famines, particularly those that blighted medieval European societies, had specific causes - war, drought, pestilence, etc - that suddenly curtailed the amount of available food. Pre-capitalist societies are particularly susceptible to such events. It is not a matter of population outstripping typical supply

But then we eradicated famine in Europe through industrialism. Hooray!


...resource limits have been pushed outward but there's nothing necessary about that process and in fact it's crazy to think that this can continue indefinitelyWhy? If food production levels have been consistently increasing for the last two hundred years, why exactly is it "crazy" to assume that this will continue?

Which really illustrates the two attitudes here. One side is convinced that progress cannot be sustained, and conjures up implausible scaremongering scenarios to bolster their case, while the other points to over two centuries of pretty much unchecked technological progress and a host of overcome hurdles.


...there are plenty of examples of societies which collapsed and which had nothing to do with capitalismTrue, I would blame isolation


Here is my source: That's a whole lot of crazy you have there. I'm not sure why the Black Death is mentioned but that brief passage does manage to hit the whole 'peak oil' fad. Not surprising given that it was published in 2004... its been a few years since everyone was terrified about peak oil. That and the fact that its

But then I did love this passage which perfectly illustrates the blind idiocy of these scaremongers:

Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the United States and Canada.41 By 2025, it is expected that the U.S. will cease to be a food exporter due to domestic demand. [...] More importantly, millions of people around the world could starve to death without U.S. food exports.42 Leaving aside the self-aggrandisement of the US, this is a classic piece of doom-monger logic:
Step 1: Assume that some factor in today's world will suddenly change for the worse
Step 2: Ignore any reaction or alleviating measure from society
Step 3: Add up the deaths

So here we have a case where the US suddenly stops being a mass exporter of wheat in 2025. No one else has noticed that US wheat sales are declining or taken any sort of corrective action. They're too busy sitting around sipping cappuccinos to bother doing something sensible like, say, increasing their own wheat production. Its much easier to just wait for Armageddon than to take preventative action to avoid disaster. Something that the Malthusians can never get their heads around either

Incidentally, global wheat production has actually increased (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/wheat/YBtable03.asp) in the past decade even as the area sown has shrunk. If US exports have declined very slightly (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/wheat/YBtable04.asp) in the same period* then it is because other countries are indeed producing more and eating into their market share. Which, along with even a casual knowledge of the trade, makes of mockery of the assertion that there are only two major exporters of grain. What of Mexico, Australia, and Russia?

*Not consistently - 2008 was roughly as good, from an exporters POV, as 2001 while 2007 was even better. Aside from increased competition, I would put the variation down to the always changing weather conditions

[Quail]

VG, this is your job ;)

Not under capitalism certainly. Thankfully, for some, the problem will never arise under imperialism. Which is a glimpse at the base racism/puritanism implicit in so much environmentalist thought - its either, 'Oh my, wouldn't it be terrible if the huddled masses in the Third World actually got to enjoy Western lifestyles!', or 'We need to reduce the living standards of our working class'. Either way its deeply reactionary

All of which is a moot point given that even 'overconsumption' is not going to destroy humanity in a century

I don't want to reduce the living standards of the working class or deny people in poorer parts of the world a decent lifestyle, but since the current western lifestyle consumes resources at an unsustainable rate, something needs to change. More efficient and environmentally friendly ways of producing energy, for example, or a reduction in the consumption of meat (or perhaps learn to grow it in vats?). I don't think that it's reactionary to point out that there is a finite amount of resources on this planet, and that if everyone consumes excessively then they might not be able to support the population.


Socialism does not equal puritanism and it will almost certainly entail people consuming more as living standards rise. There are of course huge potential environmental savings from a more efficient economy but this is not the same as 'changing lifestyles'

Under communism lifestyles will change because capitalism depends on consumption and pushes people to consume as much as possible. When there is no money, there will be much less incentive to accumulate goods because there will be no status associated with having more. So consumption rates would probably go down. Things that people do want can be also produced more efficiently, because there will be no need for over-production.

[Demogorgon]

That's not the case for the great famines of mediaeval Europe. There just wasn't enough food. As always, the poor suffered disproportionately but that doesn't mean that famine was a result exclusively of their poverty. Obviously population levels were significantly lower than they are now (though by rather less than most imagine) so technological developments have meant that resource limits have been pushed outward but there's nothing necessary about that process and in fact it's crazy to think that this can continue indefinitely. As I said in an earlier post, the suicidally reckless disregard for the environment which has characterised the post-war period means that there is a very good chance the the advances in agricultural production which we've seen, especially since the 60s, will go into reverse. If we see warming of 4 or 5 degrees (and I think that's a likely outcome), major crop yields (wheat, rice, etc) may well fall by between 10 and 30%. At the same time, population is going to hit at least 9 billion, food consumption habits are changing rapidly (wealth leads to lower population growth but massively increased meat consumption), and many of the advances in the green revolution are facing very severe challenges. This includes the fact that much of the increase in production has been brought about by drawing down fossil aquifers and by very poorly managed irrigation which has waterlogged and salinated huge areas of land. On top of this, there's limited room for extra irrigation and climate change means, in addition to reduced crop yields, that much productive land will be lost to rises in sea levels and there's a good chance that ocean acidification will start to affect dangerously marine food chains (already under massive threat from the collapse in fish stocks). There's more but it's not really necessary to catalogue all our ecological crimes. And all the time, the clock is ticking louder and louder. Some/much/most/all of this may be/might be/is amenable to solutions but I don't think it's wise to say simply "it's all capitalism's fault so if we change to a socialist/communist system everything will be fine." Much of it is capitalism's fault but, as someone said earlier, there are plenty of examples of societies which collapsed and which had nothing to do with capitalism and, in any case, however hard you try and however much you want it, it's not always possible to unbreak an egg.
Well medieval Europe was before the invention of the train, but the point that if capacity to produce food falls we are in trouble is true. But again sustainable development that can achieve equal or greater to what is achieved now is perfectly possible, it is just that the economic system makes it very hard.

I am not simply saying that the environmental problems are simply things that will go away with capitalism, I fully agree that they are of enormous concern, but I believe they make getting rid of capitalism all the more urgent, because I simply don't see capitalism coping with them in a manner that doesn't lead to a large number of deaths.

[Lampang]

Famines, particularly those that blighted medieval European societies, had specific causes - war, drought, pestilence, etc - that suddenly curtailed the amount of available food. Pre-capitalist societies are particularly susceptible to such events. It is not a matter of population outstripping typical supply. How often does famine have to occur before it becomes typical? If you live in a society characterized by regular warfare, or unpredictable climate, or unchecked diseases then that forms part of your resource limits; the population level which can be supported is defined by those factors, in the same way that artificial fertilizers and herbicides and everything else now define the resource limits within which we live.

Why? If food production levels have been consistently increasing for the last two hundred years, why exactly is it "crazy" to assume that this will continue? (i) Because if you extrapolate any trend indefinitely, you get ridiculous results. (ii) There are rather obvious limiting factors, such as the amount of land which can be brought under cultivation (a big factor in increasing production) and the main agricultural inputs (water, NPK). (iii) Changing climactic conditions are pretty much universally recognized to threaten food supplies through heat stress and disruptions to the water cycle. It’s possible that some or all of these challenges will be overcome. GM plants might become more efficient at using phosphorus or withstanding drought but it is crazy to assume that it’s simply going to happen because it’s needed.


Which really illustrates the two attitudes here. One side is convinced that progress cannot be sustained, and conjures up implausible scaremongering scenarios to bolster their case, while the other points to over two centuries of pretty much unchecked technological progress and a host of overcome hurdles. Am I guilty of “implausible scaremongering”? I don’t think so. There are obviously deeply dangerous environmental problems affecting the world and it’s equally obvious that these are going to get worse. As I said in my earlier post, it might be possible to solve them, it might not.


that brief passage does manage to hit the whole 'peak oil' fad. Not surprising given that it was published in 2004... its been a few years since everyone was terrified about peak oil. That and the fact that its You didn’t manage to complete that but I’d be curious to know why you think peak oil can be dismissed so blithely.

They're too busy sitting around sipping cappuccinos to bother doing something sensible like, say, increasing their own wheat production. How are American farmers going to do that? It’s entirely possible that they will but simply stating that there’s a problem so there’ll be a solution is as foolish as saying that there’s a problem so there’ll be no solution.

[Vanguard1917]

Haven't had a chance to read all the replies, but will quickly respond to this:


It's hardly reactionary to point out the existence of resource limits.

What is reactionary (and traditionally rightwing) is blaming so-called 'resource limits' for what are in fact the effects of the capitalist social system (hunger, war, poverty, and so on). If the problem is social, it can be solved -- and this has revolutionary implications: society needs changing. If the problem is 'resource limits', the implication is that there's very little that can be done. Hence the conservatism of the Malthusian eco-outlook.


VG, this is your job ;)

Yes, are you trying to put me out of work? We'll be fighting over scarce resources next.

[Lampang]

What is reactionary (and traditionally rightwing) is blaming so-called 'resource limits' for what are in fact the effects of the capitalist social system (hunger, war, poverty, and so on). If the problem is social, it can be solved -- and this has revolutionary implications: society needs changing. If the problem is 'resource limits', the implication is that there's very little that can be done. Hence the conservatism of the Malthusian eco-outlook.

Do you think that there aren't resource limits? Presumably so, given the scare quotes. Will the laws of physics obligingly change themselves in response to a change in human social and economic relations? I rather doubt it. Of course, there are plenty of times when the existence of resource limits is used for all sorts of reactionary ends (hence my earlier comment about the Daily Mail) but it's utter nonsense to jump for this rather obvious fact to the conclusion that all problems related to resource constraints are thus social in origin. I've already said that resource constraints are a moving target and depend on resource use, which clearly encompasses how society is organised, so I'm not sure quite what the point of this is. Of course, if you think that I or anyone else is guilty of some kind of error in specifics and that something that I've said shows my being reactionary, then please point it out.

[Vanguard1917]

Do you think that there aren't resource limits?

I am saying that the problems which environmentalists and Malthusians blame on 'resource limits' are not in fact caused by resource limits.

[Dr Mindbender]

Mankinds survival is probably at greater risk from viruses than nuclear war, natural disasters or extraterrestrial phenomenon.

[Technocrat]

How precisely do you intend to achieve this suspiciously genocidal suggestion of a two thirds population reduction?

Ignoring your clearly inflammatory intentions, the population reduction could be achieved within one or two generations with a one-child per family policy.

Or you could just ignore the problem and let nature run it's course - which means the population will be reduced through famine and war over the remaining resources. This is probably what will happen.

[Technocrat]

a bunch of stuff

Most scientists who study the issue suggest that 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a comfortable standard of living.

Why should we take your word over the word of people who have dedicated significant time and energy to studying this issue? Why is your word more credible than the dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies that have been done on the subject?

Multiple groups using multiple different methods of analysis have arrived at a figure of 1-2 billion people. I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed scientific study that suggests otherwise.

You haven't offered anything other than your hindsight-based social explanations: "local wheat production declined. This must have happened because other countries increased wheat production". This is like saying: "everytime my cat meows, my stock price goes up. Therefore, my cat meowing causes my stock price to go up." Correlation does not imply causation. This is a teleological, hindsight-based explanation, not an argument utilizing forward causality.

Just because a country produces a lot of wheat doesn't mean they aren't a net importer - India is one example. India is a net importer of wheat even though their wheat production is among the highest in the world.

In fact, the United States did become a net importer of food a few years back: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/media-that-set-us-free/1238

[Klaatu]

Most scientists who study the issue suggest that 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a comfortable standard of living.

Why should we take your word over the word of people who have dedicated significant time and energy to studying this issue? Why is your word more credible than the dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies that have been done on the subject?

Multiple groups using multiple different methods of analysis have arrived at a figure of 1-2 billion people. I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed scientific study that suggests otherwise.

You haven't offered anything other than your hindsight-based social explanations: "local wheat production declined. This must have happened because other countries increased wheat production". This is like saying: "everytime my cat meows, my stock price goes up. Therefore, my cat meowing causes my stock price to go up." Correlation does not imply causation. This is a teleological, hindsight-based explanation, not an argument utilizing forward causality.

Just because a country produces a lot of wheat doesn't mean they aren't a net importer - India is one example. India is a net importer of wheat even though their wheat production is among the highest in the world.

In fact, the United States did become a net importer of food a few years back: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/media-that-set-us-free/1238

Technocrat, what are your thoughts on this idea?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1784442&postcount=22

[Lord Testicles]

Most scientists who study the issue suggest that 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a comfortable standard of living.

[Citation needed]

[Quail]

Most scientists who study the issue suggest that 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a comfortable standard of living.


I'm just wondering, but would this figure be for the world right now, with the amount of resources it would take for people to live comfortably in our current, wasteful way of using them?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think everyone in this thread, including Vanguard1917 and Technocrat, need to read Factor Four: Doubling wealth, halving resource use (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HeMRBn-N7lEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Factor+Four&source=bl&ots=LkDq97Ek6i&sig=KkBufZw-6WJ64ZK818AMJ8QGXu4&hl=en&ei=QPAlTOu0NJ680gT8xM3IBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false").

Factor Four and Technocracy would be a potent mixture in terms of maximising quality of life and minimising resource use. I also reckon this means that population reduction need not be as drastic as some are proposing.


Mankinds survival is probably at greater risk from viruses than nuclear war, natural disasters or extraterrestrial phenomenon.

What utter, utter rot. Even assuming a particularly virulent virus doesn't effectively burn itself out (like Ebola does) there will be pockets of survivors all over the place.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, are you trying to put me out of work? We'll be fighting over scarce resources nextUnfortunately I don't think there's anything 'scarce' about this sort of environmental idiocy


I don't want to reduce the living standards of the working class or deny people in poorer parts of the world a decent lifestyle, but since the current western lifestyle consumes resources at an unsustainable rate, something needs to changeThe 'but' is the key there. You don't want to condone one of two reactionary positions but...


I don't think that it's reactionary to point out that there is a finite amount of resources on this planet, and that if everyone consumes excessively then they might not be able to support the population"Pointing out" the reality of finite resources is not reactionary, its just blindingly obvious. What is deeply reactionary/puritanical is the assertion that people are "consuming excessively" and should therefore curtail their consumption levels. At which point we return to the above dilemma


Under communism lifestyles will change because capitalism depends on consumption and pushes people to consume as much as possible. When there is no money, there will be much less incentive to accumulate goods because there will be no status associated with having more. So consumption rates would probably go downWhile conspicuous consumption cannot be discounted entirely, I see absolutely no reason to assume that people will consume less in the future or to assume that all of today's consumption is driven by evil capitalists. The reality is that people don't want a big screen TV or a second car because they like the ads, they buy these because they improve their quality of life. Similarly, do you imagine that communist society will have one brand of porridge, one producer of radios, etc? No, that's barracks communism


If you live in a society characterized by regular warfare, or unpredictable climate, or unchecked diseases then that forms part of your resource limits; the population level which can be supported is defined by those factors, in the same way that artificial fertilizers and herbicides and everything else now define the resource limits within which we liveWell obviously. Hence the population explosion when mankind became capable of both increasing food production and regulating its supply. Which does not answer my point that at no point has overpopulation caused famine... unless you are perverse enough to believe that anyone living over the very minimum food level (ie, the extremely scare amount available during a war/famine) is 'surplus population'


(i) Because if you extrapolate any trend indefinitely, you get ridiculous resultsYou mean like population growth?


(ii) There are rather obvious limiting factors, such as the amount of land which can be brought under cultivation (a big factor in increasing production) and the main agricultural inputs (water, NPK)There are always hard limits, obviously, but there is nothing to seriously suggest that we are approaching them. To give an example, in my previous post I mentioned that US wheat production had increased over the previous decade despite a decrease in the amount of land sown. Similarly, in most European countries the amount of arable land has declined or remained stagnant over the past half century despite food production continuing to rise. Hypothetically, we will surely someday reach a ceiling on the amount of food that can be squeezed... but that's in the far future. One example of how a supposed limiting factor is nothing of the sort today

Incidentally, apply these Western increases in production to the rest of the world and you'll quickly realise how absurd talk of food scarcity is


GM plants might become more efficient at using phosphorus or withstanding drought but it is crazy to assume that it’s simply going to happen because it’s needed.You have perhaps heard the phrase, 'necessity is the mother of invention'? More relevant, your argument would not seem out of place in the 1960s when people seriously considered the possibility of mass starvation as the world population approached three billion. We know how that worked out


You didn’t manage to complete that but I’d be curious to know why you think peak oil can be dismissed so blithely.My mistake, I got distracted by wheat export figures. Happens a lot

As for peak oil, this is another example of a very obvious problem being turned into a doomsday scenario. Will the Earth run out of fossil fuels someday? Of course it will - naturally occurring fuels anyway - that much is blindingly obvious. What is not obvious however is just when this will occur or indeed has occurred. Into this gap has stepped all sorts of cranks and 'peak oil' theorists, such as the author of that paper, who turn an innocuous geology term into an imminent apocalypse

But then its been a while since I've heard anyone get worked up about peak oil (this website and others were swarming with its 'advocates' a few years ago) so I can only assume that the fad has died down and the nutters have moved onto a new doomsday threat


How are American farmers going to do that? It’s entirely possible that they will but simply stating that there’s a problem so there’ll be a solution is as foolish as saying that there’s a problem so there’ll be no solution.The obvious answer being to plant more wheat. Also accepted answers include investing in improving crop yields. The scenario painted in the above post only works if these solutions (amongst others) are not feasible. Again I repeat that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case


Or you could just ignore the problem and let nature run it's course - which means the population will be reduced through famine and war over the remaining resources. This is probably what will happen."Man is headed for trouble. The world's population is increasing at a rate which renders distress, famine, and disintegration inevitable unless we learn to hold our numbers within reason"
Dr Vannevar Bush 1957

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate"
(Paul Ehrlich 1967)

"The population connection must be made in the public mind. Action to end the population explosion humanely and start a gradual population decline must become a top item on the human agenda: the human birthrate must be lowered to slightly below the human death rate as soon as possible. There still may be time to limit the scope of impending catastrophe, but not much time. … More frequent droughts, more damaged crops and famines, more dying forests, more smog, more international conflicts, more epidemics, more gridlock, more crime, more sewage swimming, and other extreme unpleasantness will mark our course"
(Paul Ehrlich 1990)



Most scientists who study the issue suggest that 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a comfortable standard of living

Why should we take your word over the word of people who have dedicated significant time and energy to studying this issue? Why is your word more credible than the dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies that have been done on the subject?Show me these then. All you've done so far is point to a crank 'peak oil' article. Find me these "dozens" of credible journal paper that supports your claims. Then we'll have something to discuss because right now I strongly suspect that your 'expert' is a crank like Ehrlich


You haven't offered anything other than your hindsight-based social explanations: "local wheat production declined. This must have happened because other countries increased wheat production". This is like saying: "everytime my cat meows, my stock price goes up. Therefore, my cat meowing causes my stock price to go up." Correlation does not imply causation. This is a teleological, hindsight-based explanation, not an argument utilizing forward causality.What exactly are you talking about? I pointed out that contrary to the expectation of your linked article, yet another incorrect prediction, US wheat exports show no signs of markedly declining. I also pointed out that the US share of the world grain market is being eroded. If you want I can refer you to several news/business articles that support this, or you can simply check google if it so interests you


Just because a country produces a lot of wheat doesn't mean they aren't a net importer - India is one example. India is a net importer of wheat even though their wheat production is among the highest in the world.One reason why I took care to mention traditional wheat exporting nations :glare:

(Granted, Mexico is apparently an importer but I feel free to substitute France or Argentina for it)

[Quail]

The 'but' is the key there. You don't want to condone one of two reactionary positions but...

I just plain don't condone either of those reactionary positions. However, the way people in some countries consume resources is unsustainable, so for everyone on the planet to do the same, we would have to have a much more efficient way of using resources. The current system is very wasteful and encourages a wasteful way of life.



"Pointing out" the reality of finite resources is not reactionary, its just blindingly obvious. What is deeply reactionary/puritanical is the assertion that people are "consuming excessively" and should therefore curtail their consumption levels. At which point we return to the above dilemma

While conspicuous consumption cannot be discounted entirely, I see absolutely no reason to assume that people will consume less in the future or to assume that all of today's consumption is driven by evil capitalists. The reality is that people don't want a big screen TV or a second car because they like the ads, they buy these because they improve their quality of life. Similarly, do you imagine that communist society will have one brand of porridge, one producer of radios, etc? No, that's barracks communism

Cutting down consumption levels does not necessarily have to lower someone's quality of life. Using greener or more efficient energy sources could maintain quality of life and reduce consumption. Not eating meat one day a week could reduce consumption of resources without reducing quality of life. Most environmental problems are caused by the industries that produce the goods that people consume, because sustainability is not profitable.
Also, I think that you're wrong that capitalism doesn't encourage people to consume more. There are so many useless products out there that only really increase quality of life because of the pressure of our society. Buying lots of clothes, make up, etc. wouldn't improve my quality of life. There are also products that outright exploit people's insecurities such as all the bullshitty anti-ageing or weight-loss products that are not really improving quality of life at all, but marketing them just makes people feel more miserable about themselves.
Obviously some products do increase quality of life, and I'm not denying that. However, I think that communism would be a lot greener because things would be produced as needed, and there wouldn't be so much pressure to accumulate useless things. Instead of having products pushed on you everywhere you look (and being encouraged to buy them), you would get new things as you wanted them.

[ComradeOm]

I just plain don't condone either of those reactionary positions. However, the way people in some countries consume resources is unsustainable, so for everyone on the planet to do the same, we would have to have a much more efficient way of using resources. The current system is very wasteful and encourages a wasteful way of lifeWhich is fair enough... until the "wasteful way of life". That, as covered below, is your opinion and you are not an authority on my lifestyle


Cutting down consumption levels does not necessarily have to lower someone's quality of lifeGenerally there are few better measures of living standards. A breakdown of worldwide nutrition consumption, for example, would provide a pretty good guide (http://hoguenews.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/800px-Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.jpg ) towards the distribution of living standards across the globe. Energy consumption is obviously slightly different, as there is considerable scope for efficiency savings through technology, but generally the picture is similar (http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/19860/full-version-1.gif). That is, that nations/regions with higher living standards record higher consumption rates. Which is what you would expect and entirely in keeping with historical trends


Not eating meat one day a week could reduce consumption of resources without reducing quality of lifeIt would reduce my quality of life. I enjoy eating meat and I generally incorporate it, in some form, into my daily meals. Any life in which I reduce this practice is poorer than one in which I lead a meat-rich existence. In the final analysis I am the only person qualified to judge what activities will enrich my 'quality of life'

But maybe we should eat fish on Fridays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_and_abstinence_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Churc h)?


Also, I think that you're wrong that capitalism doesn't encourage people to consume more. There are so many useless products out there that only really increase quality of life because of the pressure of our society. Buying lots of clothes, make up, etc. wouldn't improve my quality of life. There are also products that outright exploit people's insecurities such as all the bullshitty anti-ageing or weight-loss products that are not really improving quality of life at all, but marketing them just makes people feel more miserable about themselvesWhile you're making moral judgements as to just what distinguishes a 'good' product from a 'bad' one, I'd like to go ahead and ban dancing. Some might reject this as being unnecessarily Calvinist but I, being a pretty poor dancer*, feel that dancing does not contribute to people's 'quality of life'. Instead of leaving the decision - to dance or not to dance - to people themselves I plan to ban music and the operation of dancehalls. This is altogether more sustainable and will significantly reduce the ill effects of noise pollution

There is a serious point there but I think its obvious enough not to need further elaboration

*Only joking, I'm a real terror on the dance floor


Instead of having products pushed on you everywhere you look (and being encouraged to buy them), you would get new things as you wanted them.And what if I wanted more than one brand of porridge? What if I wanted a TV in every room? A new pair of snazzy jeans? By limiting my choice you are limiting my ability to consume and this cannot but affect my 'quality of life'. It makes a mockery of communism (which is, as I've noted, a society marked by abundance) to be told just what goods I can and cannot buy/acquire. As I hinted at above, the "regulation of consumption" is just one small step away from the coldly spartan vision of "barracks-room communism". This something that I want no part of

[Quail]

I don't think I've explained myself very well, because you've taken what I was trying to say and twisted it. I'm too tired to write any response now (the joys of having a 3 month old baby..) so I will come back tomorrow and explain my position in a more coherent way.

[Demogorgon]

Ignoring your clearly inflammatory intentions, the population reduction could be achieved within one or two generations with a one-child per family policy.

Or you could just ignore the problem and let nature run it's course - which means the population will be reduced through famine and war over the remaining resources. This is probably what will happen.
Given the country that famously uses the one child policy (and wouldn't you just love the enforcement involved there?) has a steadily growing population you will have to try harder than that.

That being said, your notion that the world can only support two billion people is nonsense. Two billion is not the number that "most scientists agree on", it is the lowest estimate, others go far higher. The fact is that so long as our capacity to produce food is enough that everyone could be fed presuming proper distribution (we have the capacity but not distribution right now) we can maintain the current population level and otherwise achieving prosperity comes down to sensible use of other resources. Six or seven billion people can easily be supported.

Now do I think the earth's population can keep on increasing indefinitely? No, I don't. Barring being able to live on other planets, there is a limit, but with a decent economic system that limit is unreachable because prosperity causes a fall in the birth rate. Of course if capitalism continues there will be major problems, but capitalism isn't exactly short of those, is it?

It is funny how you offer enforced birth control and disaster as your options, and entirely leave out egalitarianism.

[Dr Mindbender]

What utter, utter rot. Even assuming a particularly virulent virus doesn't effectively burn itself out (like Ebola does) there will be pockets of survivors all over the place.

You sound like you base that assumption on that ebola is the only killer virus, it isnt. One virus that does scare me is smallpox because it has the capability to spread to a large area fairly quickly. If you ignore our intellectual infancy of the medieval age, bubonic plague proves that contagen has the potential to kill en masse.

Even in a nuclear war, there would be 'pockets of survivors'. Thats before you ignore the fact that several authorities across the world have the facilities to ensure that mankind is saved from extinction even if the bombs fall. The point is a epidemic is hard to plan against because the imminence of the danger is less apparent (personally i feel if the doomsday predictions for the swine flu had been more than hot air we'd have been buggered because the authorities had their heads up the arse with the way they handled it) and i dont think the current political climate is as conducive for a nuclear war since the soviet union fell.

[Vanguard1917]

Obviously some products do increase quality of life, and I'm not denying that. However, I think that communism would be a lot greener because things would be produced as needed, and there wouldn't be so much pressure to accumulate useless things. Instead of having products pushed on you everywhere you look (and being encouraged to buy them), you would get new things as you wanted them.

As ComradeOm has pointed out, this tends to be simple moralism. What is 'useful' to you may not be useful to me. But that does not mean that i have the right to say that that product or service should not be produced.

And the idea that working class people consume things because they're brainwashed and led astray like impressionable children by colourful adverts they see in magazines and on the tele is based on a contemptuous view of the working class. In reality, working class people on the whole purchase the things that they do (cars, household appliances, holidays abroad -- i.e. things middle-class environmentalists wish workers stayed away from) because those things make their lives better. Workers are far more rational than you give them credit for.



I think that you're wrong that capitalism doesn't encourage people to consume more.


Capitalism creates underconsumption -- i.e. vast poverty. If the problem with capitalism was that it somehow made everyone too rich, that would mean we would have to be calling for a system that made everyone poorer. That's the logical conclusion of eco-logic.

[Quail]

By "useless products" I meant things like diet pills that don't work or whatever. In a communist society, why would people waste their time producing stuff like that? I don't intend to ban anything. I'm pointing out that some products probably won't exist in communism because they have no use.

I don't think people are led astray by colourful adverts :/ I can credit people with more intelligence than that. Our society is based upon consumerism. Capitalism needs us to buy lots of stuff to keep itself going, and a lot of companies do manipulate people into buying their stuff (or more of it). For example a bakery that leaves the door open will probably get more customers because people will smell the food and decide that they want some.

Capitalism does create extreme poverty. Most of the consumption is done by the richest people in the world. The richest few consume the majority of the resources. I'm not complaining about workers having cars (although it would be better if public transport was good enough for people not to need them; driving is a pain, to me at least) or going on holidays. Most of the resources are used by big businesses, not the people themselves, and it's the big businesses that produce things unsustainably and encourage consumerism that are the problem.

I think it's obvious that by consumption I meant to say "consumption of resources". This could definitely be realistically lowered without reducing people's quality of life with greener technology and a less wasteful approach to producing things. It won't happen under capitalism though.

Eating less meat was simply a suggestion, since meat production is a big cause of environmental damage. I guess that back when I did eat meat, I was an exception to the rule in that I could actually enjoy meat-free food.

I'm just going to sum up my position here before anyone claims that I'm a racist or an enemy of the working class again.
-A large population in itself is not a threat.
-A large population that consumes resources recklessly is.
-There is a limit to the amount of resources the population can make use of (and can make use of without contributing towards ecological problems), and a limit to what those resources can provide. Obviously, more efficient technology, production and distribution can provide more from the same number of resources.
-Capitalism disregards its long term environmental impact in favour of profit in the short term.
-Capitalism creates a lot of waste in the way that things are produced.
-A communist society would produce things more efficiently, and in my opinion should be concerned with the environmental impact of the way things are produced. Causing environmental problems will eventually create more work as we have to try to offset them, and could reduce living conditions for future generations. I don't think that people should try to reduce their quality of life to protect that of future generations, but instead try to maintain their quality of life and consume fewer resources.

Seriously, stop twisting my words to make it sound like I want us all living without electricity or luxuries. And fuck off with "maybe we should eat fish on fridays".

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I don't think people are led astray by colourful adverts :/ I can credit people with more intelligence than that. Our society is based upon consumerism.

Speaking as a psychologist, yes we can quite easily. We wouldn't have said colorful adverts if they weren't effective.

And people aren't dumb for falling for them, if we couldn't fall for them there would be no communism, not capitalism, no science, because there would be no culture.


Seriously, stop twisting my words to make it sound like I want us all living without electricity or luxuries. And fuck off with "maybe we should eat fish on fridays".Let me tell you a story, long long long ago there were one million of us apes in the world. One million.
Within one hundred years we would have consumed all biomass on the land, all of it. That's how inefficient we were as hunter gatherers.
So we invented agriculture, and now we support -six billion- where before we couldn't support even a million.

So maybe you should stop buying and propagating the Malthusian arguments, which are ultimately about racism and classism not some vague notion of preserving our species future.

[Quail]

Let me tell you a story, long long long ago there were one million of us apes in the world. One million.
Within one hundred years we would have consumed all biomass on the land, all of it. That's how inefficient we were as hunter gatherers.
So we invented agriculture, and now we support -six billion- where before we couldn't support even a million.

So maybe you should stop buying and propagating the Malthusian arguments, which are ultimately about racism and classism not some vague notion of preserving our species future.

Depending on how we use our resources, we can support more or less people. We need to adapt our current sonsumption rates and make our consumption of resources more efficient to support a good standard of living for everyone.

I'm not propagating the Malthusian argument because I don't believe that the number of resources we have is growing at a linear rate. The amount of resources we can live on is based on many factors and varies with the efficiency of our technology. So if we use our resources efficiently then we can support a large number of people, but not at current consumption rates.



Speaking as a psychologist, yes we can quite easily. We wouldn't have said colorful adverts if they weren't effective.

And people aren't dumb for falling for them, if we couldn't fall for them there would be no communism, not capitalism, no science, because there would be no culture.

I meant that adverts aren't the only reason that people want things, but I do think that they play a part in it.

[La Comédie Noire]

You know throughout human history there are always those preaching ultimate doom or unlimited prosperity, but in the end reality always disappoints us by landing somewhere in the middle.

I don't really like it when scientists write New York Time's best seller's btw. The science almost always suffers.