How Many People Are Too Many People?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[quote=]The continuous growth of the economy can be purchased only at the expense of increasing disorder or entropy in the ecosphere. This is the point at which consumption by the economy exceeds natural income and would be manifested through the continuous depletion of natural capital --reduced biodiversity, air/water/land pollution, deforestation, atmospheric change, etc. In other words, the empirical evidence suggests that the aggregate human load already exceeds, and is steadily eroding, the very carrying capacity upon which the continued humane existence depends. Ultimately this poses the threat of unpredictable ecosystems restructuring (e.g., erratic climate change) leading to resource shortages, increased local strife, and the heightened threat of ecologically induced geopolitical instability.[/quote]
Full Article - Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability by William Rees

Considering the above quote--which I realize is quite dense relating to the second law of thermodynamics--How many people are too many people? If there are too many people, can population by reduced ethically without authoritarian coercion? Or should humanity allow civilization plunge into total chaos and allow things to work out "naturally" without interference?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,367 • Replies: 18

No top replies

@Theaetetus,

Heres the issue straight up:

The world economics is in favor for the powerful. The monetary system in which it is governed by the world banks and Fed, is a large cause in confusing people about the availability of resources and technology.

Concerns about what this all means, leads people in two directions.

1. Continue a flawed system that distributes a representation of resources. Money. And either....

A. Address the issues of poverty verse society by reconstructing the systems that govern and control the distributions in a fair way.

B. Continue to hoard and gather resources and technology, leading to ideas that would justify mass population loss.

2. Remove the monetary system and create a new governing system to distribute resources and technology.

I personally believe that option one is the only thing people are willing to follow. However there still can be huge changes that would deal with issues as important as mass genocide. That is what it is. Why? because in our modern world today, There are enough resources and technology to take care of everyone on the most basic levels. Hardly anyone knows this, being stuck in a one track mind set. People are greedy and others are scared of real change.

If you think that world population reduction is necessary, you are truly lying to yourself. Do some thinking, about how society would have to be revolutionized to support everyone.

Hint: Food, water and shelter, is all people need to survive. If you think these structures is what is preventing from the world to take care of itself, take a close look at the way technology is being used.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I am sorry but your idealistic beliefs cannot sustain themselves on earth. Populations continue to grow until the resource level can no longer sustain the population and then the decline of population inevitably happens. Humans are no different. It would be nice to think that because humans can reason they are different, but survival instinct kicks in overriding reason.

Sure the system is messed up, but so is a species that radically alters its environment while not fully understanding the consequences. The only reason why a large percentage of the population currently lives in comfort is due to use of fossil fuels, which allow an apparent increase in how many people nature allows. Cut off fossil fuel use in agriculture, transportation, and energy and the amount of people the planet can hold plummets.

Also, unless something is done it is only a matter of time before the amount of waste that humanity produces ends up choking off its ability to survive. Only so much waste can go away in a given amount of time...

After nature is considered, then civilization can be considered. Some things end up proving to be more important than others.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I am sorry but your idealistic beliefs cannot sustain themselves on earth. Populations continue to grow until the resource level can no longer sustain the population and then the decline of population inevitably happens. Humans are no different. It would be nice to think that because humans can reason they are different, but survival instinct kicks in overriding reason.

Sure the system is messed up, but so is a species that radically alters its environment while not fully understanding the consequences. The only reason why a large percentage of the population currently lives in comfort is due to use of fossil fuels, which allow an apparent increase in how many people nature allows. Cut off fossil fuel use in agriculture, transportation, and energy and the amount of people the planet can hold plummets.

Also, unless something is done it is only a matter of time before the amount of waste that humanity produces ends up choking off its ability to survive. Only so much waste can go away in a given amount of time...

After nature is considered, then civilization can be considered. Some things end up proving to be more important than others.

Your getting ahead of yourself my friend. You said it yourself, the fuels we use will be used up eventually and the circumstances will get worse. But you seem to talk about this like it is inevitable. Thats lazy. Why not talk about how we can change this course. Natural alternate fuels is in front of our face. Of course there will be a loss of power, both physically and politically. But These acceptances as a price to pay are irresponsible and unnecessary.

As for my idealistic beliefs, I hope you understand, that is all that ever changes history. Peoples belief and knowledge, that there is a better way.

Lift up your chin and focus on how and why our course can change. I live in America, and my ideas have the benefit to be heard strongly.

There will be a day when our occupancy on this planet will come at a crossroads. The only difference we can make is when, and I'm sorry but your reasonings reflect an acceptance for how we are. Always try to better your hope. Thats what helps society.

2 Replies

@Joe,

I recently took an IQ test. I wanted to investigate how exactly the scores were measured, so I was searching and came across a site that I cant for the life of my find right now, but I'll sum it up here.

A prof was given a truck load of IQ test from the US and other various countries dating back to the 60's, 70's, and 80's. From that data to the data he currently had from the 90's he was able to calculate that the worlds average IQ has increased by (EDIT-3% every century). Global population growth is circa 48% since 1960. Those two percentiles are very unsettling.
more people + ignorance = (fill in the blank)

Soon we will be eating our wheaties in the morning listening to NPR announce 60,000 thousand die in last nights earthquake and not even bat an eye.

I hate to have this particular post my first post, but it's an issue thats been eating at me for some time now.

Lukas

1 Reply

@ROBOTER,

ROBOTER wrote:

I recently took an IQ test. I wanted to investigate how exactly the scores were measured, so I was searching and came across a site that I cant for the life of my find right now, but I'll sum it up here.

A prof was given a truck load of IQ test from the US and other various countries dating back to the 60's, 70's, and 80's. From that data to the data he currently had from the 90's he was able to calculate that the worlds average IQ has increased by (EDIT-3% every century). Global population growth is circa 48% since 1960. Those two percentiles are very unsettling.
more people + ignorance = (fill in the blank)

Soon we will be eating our wheaties in the morning listening to NPR announce 60,000 thousand die in last nights earthquake and not even bat an eye.

I hate to have this particular post my first post, but it's an issue thats been eating at me for some time now.

Lukas

I have been trying to live up to a good intelligence test all my life... From what I can remember it was a lot of multiple choices and true false.... Maybe I was just lucky... Maybe they should try telling all the notsos that they are the most intelligent in the class and ask them why they are not doing better... The object is not to corner the culls and pass on the bright ones to bigger and better things, but to inspire all kids to their best; and this we do not do... In the one place they need an intelligence test they cannot legally give it, and that is before employment... The thing is that low intelligent people are trippers who have accidents, and cause accident... Rather than main streaming low intelligent people to hold menial jobs, they ought to pay those people to stay home and out of the way... The life they save may be their own...

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Your getting ahead of yourself my friend. You said it yourself, the fuels we use will be used up eventually and the circumstances will get worse. But you seem to talk about this like it is inevitable. Thats lazy. Why not talk about how we can change this course. Natural alternate fuels is in front of our face. Of course there will be a loss of power, both physically and politically. But These acceptances as a price to pay are irresponsible and unnecessary.

As for my idealistic beliefs, I hope you understand, that is all that ever changes history. Peoples belief and knowledge, that there is a better way.

Lift up your chin and focus on how and why our course can change. I live in America, and my ideas have the benefit to be heard strongly.

There will be a day when our occupancy on this planet will come at a crossroads. The only difference we can make is when, and I'm sorry but your reasonings reflect an acceptance for how we are. Always try to better your hope. Thats what helps society.

I am looking at the perspective of biology and necessity. A population will continue to grow until something comes in and limits that growth (e.g. lack of resources, predator increase, disease). Sure, something can be done to limit population, but naturally speaking, only disaster can do so.

New technologies could be developed, but that only puts off the real problem until sometime in the future. Eventually population will grow to unsustainable level (which I argue has already happened) leading to catastrophe. Something must be done to eliminate population growth to avert disaster.

I argue that pragmatism rather than idealism changes history, but that is a different discussion for a different time.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I am looking at the perspective of biology and necessity. A population will continue to grow until something comes in and limits that growth (e.g. lack of resources, predator increase, disease). Sure, something can be done to limit population, but naturally speaking, only disaster can do so.

New technologies could be developed, but that only puts off the real problem until sometime in the future. Eventually population will grow to unsustainable level (which I argue has already happened) leading to catastrophe. Something must be done to eliminate population growth to avert disaster.

I argue that pragmatism rather than idealism changes history, but that is a different discussion for a different time.

Necessity changes history... People hang on to old forms as long as they can, but only seldom will they giver their lives for a form that does not give them their lives back.... Read the Declaration of Independence... I think Jeffereson had it about right in regard to forms...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

It is the reaction to necessity that changes history. But the direction of that reaction decides the future course of history.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Catatastrophe is not necessarily always the only agent of change. Remember Malthus, the first time around. His visions of disaster did not become a reality at that point in time even if they have not lost much of their relevance to our own situation.
Sometimes catastrophe can be averted by technology and even more rarely by a change in attitude.

How much is to much the OP asks? I think that if we could make the changes necessary our world could easily support the number of people on it. When everyone gets what is their due and no one tries to make off with a far too large slice of the pie.

1 Reply

@sarek,

From reading the replies to this post, it would seem that most are arguing their point based on a conception of static population.

It may be possible to support the current 6.87 billion humans with the finite amount of resources available now, but what happens when that population hits 10 billion? 15 billion?

In 1970, the world's population was around 3.8 billion.
Circa 1900, it was 1 billion.

This is exponential growth, and if it continues unabated, will not be sustainable with the resources we have on Earth.

2 Replies

@JLP,

Here is an interesting article discussing the population boom, its supposed regress, and the reasons behind these trends:

Human population explosion - Encyclopedia of Earth

0 Replies

@JLP,

JLP wrote:

From reading the replies to this post, it would seem that most are arguing their point based on a conception of static population.

It may be possible to support the current 6.87 billion humans with the finite amount of resources available now, but what happens when that population hits 10 billion? 15 billion?

In 1970, the world's population was around 3.8 billion.
Circa 1900, it was 1 billion.

This is exponential growth, and if it continues unabated, will not be sustainable with the resources we have on Earth.

This is the exact reason for my concern--exponential population growth. While technology has allowed for 7 billion people to live on earth(of course many are in poverty but that is irrelevant in this discussion), the technology requires massive use of fossil fuels. While it is easy to say that human ingenuity will develop new technology, at some point the population base will not be able survive with limited resources.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Full Article - Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability by William Rees

Considering the above quote--which I realize is quite dense relating to the second law of thermodynamics--How many people are too many people? If there are too many people, can population by reduced ethically without authoritarian coercion? Or should humanity allow civilization plunge into total chaos and allow things to work out "naturally" without interference?

That's a nice quote you had there. I think it's a fancy way of saying; simple economics - supply and demand - there is an insatiable, unlimited amount of demand and a finite amount of supply.

As long as that happens mate, then you have too many people. When it stops happening, then you're at the right population.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

If I could quickly say something, Malthus's stipulation of subsistence I disagree with... if that matters.

Theaetetus wrote:

This is the exact reason for my concern--exponential population growth.

I wouldn't worry about it. Malthus was actually right about positing (though I'd rather just call it an observation) these "limiting factors", it would seem.

Theaetetus wrote:

While it is easy to say that human ingenuity will develop new technology, at some point the population base will not be able survive with limited resources.

What's the point:depressed:. Technology is limited by the monetary system. Even if new technology starts to be used it's all governed by the root of the problem that's creating this mess in the first place.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Mathematically speaking, the Earth began with a set lifespan. The resources on one planet can not support a population of sentient beings forever. The population has an effect on the world's well-being, because every human produces waste, which is not always re-integrated into the environment. An ideal population level for the earth is between 2.5 and 3 billion people (the population at which the earth is stable and supporting itself). Given what I've read about, the maximum capacity possible without risking major problems is around 8 billion.

Should

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------

Mathematically speaking, the Earth began with a set lifespan. The resources on one planet can not support a population of sentient beings forever. The population has an effect on the world's well-being, because every human produces waste, which is not always re-integrated into the environment. An ideal population level for the earth is between 2.5 and 3 billion people (the population at which the earth is stable and supporting itself). Given what I've read about, the maximum capacity possible without risking major problems is around 8 billion.

Should we kill off the dumbest of the masses (:eek:no!)? This question bothers me beacuse although they have less to contribute to society, everyone contributes. If only the upper 10% of humans remained, who would do the work we take for granted?

When we do die out and the sun consumes earth in a massive gravitational vortex, we will be recycled as carbon, hydrogen, etc.

I digressed too much and I'm not sure if I said that right.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I totally forgot that I started this thread. Thank you Leonard for bring it up again...

I am not that worried about what another four billion years of evolution of the sun will bring to the planet; I am worried about what our current growth level of the population will bring. Considering we are running up to the limits of fossil fuel production, what would it mean adding billions of people at an exponential rate?

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Here are the facts as I understand them:

1. Without a cheap and constant supply of petroleum, a very large percentage of the world's population would starve to death in short order.

2. When peak oil arrives population growth will still be accelerating, at which point there will be a shortage of food.

3. Not only is there peak oil, there is 'peak everything.' In other words, we are scraping the bottom of the barrel in most metallic, coal and industrial mineral mines, having already consumed the richest deposits.

4. There is no source of energy that exists which could replace petroleum. The net yield of petro dwarfs everything else. The only even remotely viable replacement would be nuclear power and the infrastructure cannot possibly be put in place before peak oil arrives. Even now the nuclear power system is declining and accumulating waste it can't get rid of.

Therefore, I see only two options: a massive population decline or a massive decline in living standards. I think we'll experience a combination of the two over the next few decades.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

It wasn't until roughly 1814 that we achieved a global population of one billion. When I was born that had just reached two billion. In my lifetime global population has increased more than threefold and it is expected to quadruple before it begins easing off barring cataclysmic interventions.

Our planet's actual carrying capacity, in terms of renewables, lies somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion, a figure we exceeded in the 80's. Since then we've been running an environmental deficit, eating our seed corn as it were. This is evidenced in deforestation, desertification, species extinction and resource exhaustion. Nothing is perhaps as threatening as the spreading depletion of freshwater resources marked by receding glaciers and the unsustainable drawing down of groundwater (aquifer) resources.

I suspect we've placed ourselves in a position where the earth's optimal maximum population is no longer sustainable. This seems to be the conclusion of agencies including the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence.

To return to your question of how many is too many, that surely must depend on the state of environmental and resource degradation at any given point in time. It is the degraded environment that determines our carrying capacity just as it has in every societal collapse from the Mesopotamians to the Mayans.

Here is a point to consider in this discussion. Every society that has collapsed has done the same thing before it went under. It raids. It wages war on its neighbors, wars of survival.

The retreating Himalayan glaciers have raised the spectre of a freshwater crisis with associated drought and famine issues between India and Pakistan and, potentially, China and Russia. The social unrest from this could be enormous, particularly between India and Pakistan. Now, what do all four nations have in common? Nuclear arsenals. At first blush that may sound apocalyptic and impossible. It is not.

0 Replies

How Many People Are Too Many People?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know