Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:51 AM Mar 2013

How overpopulated is the planet, really? [View all]

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

There has been a lot of skull-scratching over the last 10 years about what the level of sustainable human population might be over the long haul. Sometimes people wonder about “optimum” population levels, which is an obfuscatory, bullshit way of asking, “How much of our modern high-energy lifestyle can we hang onto as TSHTF?”

My recent work on Thermodynamic Footprints prompted me to go back and re-visit the question, from the view of global average population density.

There are about 20 million square miles (50 million km^2) of habitable land on the planet. The other 2/3 is covered by snow, mountains or deserts, or has little to no topsoil.

An average population density for a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners is around 1 person per square kilometer, down to 1 person per square mile. That pegs the upper bound for a sustainable world population at 20 to 50 million people. Based on that number, our current population is at least 150 times too big to be sustainable. Put another way, we are now about 1500% into overshoot.

However, the story is even worse than that. Our use of technological energy gives each of us the average planetary impact of about 20 hunter-foragers (and the comparable number for the USA alone is about 1:60). This means that the world’s “thermodynamic equivalent population” is 20 times our actual numbers, or about 140 billion .

The implication is that if we wanted to keep on with the average level of per-capita consumption in today’s world, we would run into an overshoot situation at a global population of about 2.5 million people. By this measure our population is about 3,000 times too big and active for long-term sustainability. In other words, by this measure we are we are now 30,000% into overshoot.

Maintaining an average American lifestyle would permit a world population of only about 0.5 to 1 million people – clearly not enough to sustain a modern global civilization.

For the sake of comparison, it is estimated that the world population just after the dawn of agriculture was about 4 million, and in Year 1 was about 200 million.

I’m just sayin’ …

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I thought our population was 6,000 times too big. wtmusic Mar 2013 #1
G'day, mate! I wonder how many ways there are to say, GliderGuider Mar 2013 #2
What is the percentage of people across the globe LWolf Mar 2013 #3
Pretty much. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #4
To summarize: LWolf Mar 2013 #11
Pithy and succinct. I like it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #13
No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #36
Well, now... chervilant Mar 2013 #21
Yes. LWolf Mar 2013 #25
Need to start eating bugs. Neoma Mar 2013 #5
That's why they're called meal-worms, isn't it? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #6
I was being serious. Neoma Mar 2013 #9
I know, just trying to lighten up an other wise deadly-serious topic. nt GliderGuider Mar 2013 #10
Best I can do is recycle and be vegetarian. Neoma Mar 2013 #15
Recycle, Freecycle, and chervilant Mar 2013 #22
I live in a condo, no room for that stuff. Neoma Mar 2013 #23
Have you finalized which 50 million get to continue breathing? FBaggins Mar 2013 #7
Nope. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #12
I've been saying this for decades BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #8
Could I advise you to save your breath, energy and friendships? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #14
I know too. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #16
Hey!!! chervilant Mar 2013 #24
"can't hear you. They will resent you for saying it. " stuntcat Mar 2013 #17
This morning I did a little thought experiment on involuntary population decline GliderGuider Mar 2013 #20
hmm... chervilant Mar 2013 #26
I wonder if your students.. stuntcat Mar 2013 #29
Can I just point out there's no 'data' in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2013 #33
I think that if you're right, you should take it up with the OP poster. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #34
Why is your upper limit "a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners"? Jim Lane Mar 2013 #18
Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables GliderGuider Mar 2013 #19
Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology. Jim Lane Mar 2013 #31
If that turns you on, by all means go for it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #32
I think your numbers are low, but the gist is right. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #27
I'm not trying to present this as some kind of "population target". GliderGuider Mar 2013 #28
So, even the Georgia Guidestones figure of "500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", is high. NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #30
My assumption about the number that represents sustainability is just that - an assumption GliderGuider Mar 2013 #35
"1500% into overshoot" ... should be 14900%. nt eppur_se_muova Mar 2013 #37
Yeah, I realized that later. My web article has it corrected. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How overpopulated is the ...»Reply #0