This Graph is damn scary

[UndertheOcean]

Yet it seems to be a taboo issue that no one likes to talk about , and when you bring it up you are accused to prejudice against developing countries (where most of the exponential growth lies ).

This is even scarier than peak oil .

We either lower our numbers gently and hope for the best , or nature will take care of it , with too much misery and suffering involved.

[Oregone]

1. So?

I find what is more scary is that only a small, relatively static part of that population consumes the mass majority of the resources, causing widespread pollution of the globe. Our standard of living is no more sustainable than that level of growth

[haikugal]

2. Yeah But......

the 'Quiver Full' movement says they aren't the 'right' people so get populating!!!

[tabasco]

7. So?

On a planet with limited resources, you write, "so?"

Your posts indicate a lack of critical thinking ability.

[Oregone]

13. You talk about limited resources.....

But where those population booms are happening, the standard of living is much lower and a birth can produce a negligable effect on overall demand.

Every single child born in the USA makes a much bigger impact than hundreds born in third world countries.

The earth can support a lot more people, if they merely all lived in different ways.

[tabasco]

25. You wrote, "so" to imply overpopulation is not a problem.

That's stupid.

I'm not interested in your other blathering.

[Oregone]

33. Over-population is a problem by tautology

But high population density is not always overpopulation; it depends on context. High population density in areas full of consumerists who have unsafe ecological practices is a problem (and could be called "over population"). But high population density is not a problem as long as the population is practicing sustainable living methods and not harming the environment.


"I'm not interested in your other blathering."

My other "blathering" is concerning the fact that regions with low population densities are a much bigger concern than just the notion about high population density (because first-world nations consume resources at unsustainable levels).

If you are to define over-population based on the idea that the population's demand for resources outpaces the environment's ability to safely meet that level, less population dense regions in the USA would be much closer to the this definition than highly populated third world regions. Hence, its not really about the aggregate quantity, which makes a graphic of the total somewhat irrelevant to the important matters at hand.

[TheKentuckian]

93. I agree with the meat of your point but no matter what humans are resource

intensive and there is no sustainable way for 10 billion humans to live on this little rock.

There is no way to support that many hunter/gatherers so agriculture at the very least is mandatory and at that point it all still breaks down anyway.

I don't think you can just simply scale up the simpler social arrangements. Anytime humans gather in any significant numbers we become tremendous resource hogs.
I bet even a billion of us is a tremendous strain on the planet even living in a similar fashion to say a thousand years ago.

[mike_c]

54. I have to disagree with you on this one, my friend....

The Earth is already way past sustainable human carrying capacity. I do agree with the main point you're trying to make about the inequity of resource use, but even so, I think the human population is too great generally, despite variations in national birth rates and resource consumption rates. All other things being equal, fewer humans would be good for the planet.

The notion of carrying capacity is widely misunderstood I think. Yes, as you suggest the Earth can sustain many more humans than it currently does, for a time. But we've already long passed the point where such populations could be maintained sustainably, and we're also past the point where any long term "common good" can be sustained.

Garrett Hardin explained it best in The Tragedy of the Commons, I think. The maximum number of people can only be supported with a minimum of resources for each, i.e. we will only approach that thermodynamic limit when all of the available energy and resources are being used to sustain humans at the lowest level of sustenance possible. None left for surplus activities, like art, sport, human joy. That thermodynamic view of carrying capacity won't ever be achieved, but it's a mistake to say that therefore we are nowhere near maxed out. I think we maxed out about the middle of the last century, frankly. Possibly before.

[Hannah Bell]

116. 1 small country, the US, consumes (e.g.) about 25% of the world's oil.

300 million people out of 6 billion.

and of that, the rich consume the majority.

tragedy of the commons is the bunk. he was a winger, & his essay was historically, ecologically & socially false.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=513

http://links.org.au/node/725

and the poorest tribesmen at the dawn of history produced art, music, & literature.

[WonderGrunion]

87. Then we really need to increase our bombing of Aghan babies

With bigger bombs so we can make way for more American babies.

[amborin]

11. we're currently the biggest consumers of energy & resources

but China and India are rapidly catching up; didn't China just overtake us?

and, while i agree with the sentiment, over-population takes a huge toll, everywhere

[Oregone]

16. Yep, and thats a huge problem with the notion of globalization

If multi-national corporations raise the standard of living of impoverished nations, seeking cheap labor, then it makes that population into larger consumers of earth's natural resources (and if the globe is already at a tipping point, another 1-2% of the population consuming at elevated rates can be the straw that breaks the camel's back). The big problem Im seeing isn't necessarily the population, but the way of life of a specific population.

[amborin]

26. yes,

agree totally....

but there are also many articles documenting how, even in subsistence agricultural areas, over-pop is leading to ecol devastation, even minus the consumer mentality....

[Oregone]

34. I definitely agree there

It depends entirely on the context really. Low population can do the same, depending entirely on the populations living practices too.

[amborin]

44. yes,

though the context is all over....take just about any country w/ high fertility rate and subsistence ag and there's ecological devastation, in search of firewood, charcoal, arable land, etc....

(i used to subscribe to the 'poverty causes over-pop' thesis, and still do, in principle; in reality, however, the arrows surely go both ways, and, in the process, it results in lots of ecol harm

[Oregone]

45. Don't forget though

Some of that ecological devastation in the third world is caused by low population 1st world nations scouring the globe for resources. Not all destruction is local.

While an impoverished nation may become over-populated, they can also become victim to global corporations preying upon their resources and labor. Correlation is not always causation.

[amborin]

103. yes,

you're right, and it's horrifying! japan, e.g., promoting/benefiting from illegal pillaging of Indonesia's irreplacable hardwood forests; one of too many examples; or the west's appetite for palm oil, leading to massive conversion of virgin rainforest to palm oil plantations; or the Netherlands, among other high income countriees, buying up vasts acreage in Ethiopia (and destroying its native habitat and the wildlife dependent on it) to gain additional arable land for its first world tastes;

nonetheless, as bad as all that is, it doesn't diminish from the negative impact of over-pop

[Jigglebilly]

114. dang nabbit I shoulda followed this subthread before I weighed in below :)

[Jigglebilly]

113. yeah but a lot of those developing countries are surging to achieve parity with Western lifestyles..

India and China quite often comment about the wish to bring middle class Western lifestyles to their populations. Of course, they might not ever achieve that because we might run out of cheap energy before that happens. Point is, yes the Westernized world is the real resource vampire...for now...but this is beginning to shift especially as our own populations decline while industrializing countries sirge.

[zipplewrath]

3. Such trends are unsustainable

That plot is indicative of a trend that is unstable. Those kinds of trends generally are unsustainable. Something will cause it to change. Of course some of the options are not all that pleasant. One would like to see it start to "heel over" and flatten out. Actual reversals would most likely be ugly. WHERE all those people, and will be might tell one a bit about HOW it might play out in the future. The data I've seens suggest much of this is going on in India, and that it will tend to stay there, which also suggests it will be moderated there in the near future.

[Subdivisions]

4. Yet it seems to be a taboo issue - Yeah, like Peak Oil. Which, btw, will go

along way towards turning that graph back downward.

[Terry in Austin]

42. No kidding! Wanna know how to empty a room in 30 seconds?

Just mention "peak oil." Works every time.

And yes -- oil up, population up; oil down, population down.

[CrispyQ]

58. Thom Hartmann says we're living in "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight."

Too bad we're not going to pull our collective head out of our collective ass in time to avoid what is sure to be one of humanity's harshest lessons.

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight
by Thom Hartmann

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400051576/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1M26NZHQQ452G319SB3H&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

[Subdivisions]

79. Even Thom Hartman couldn't get a 10-post discussion going on DU about Peak Oil.

He's probably tried.

[qb]

5. The Vatican's opposition to family planning sure doesn't help.

[Recovered Repug]

100. You learn something knew everyday.

I was completely unaware that China and India were predominately Catholic.

[Touchdown]

6. This will not go down until "Be Fruitful and Multiply" is no longer believed.

And I think we all know what needs to happen before we can reject that.

So don't expect a leveling off any time soon.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Malthusian growth by definition is unstable

It doesn't remain stable, it never has remained stable, it never will. There's sound physical laws governing the use of finite resources which make certain Malthusian growth can't last.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. The crux of the matter, of course, is the manner in which the "not lasting" part will happen. -nt

[EstimatedProphet]

68. Yep. It will be followed by lots and lots of rotting meat

[dmallind]

9. We don't know if this is scary at all

and won't until there is real data behind a maximum. Population density overall is far lower than many quite successful places, ao it's certainly poasible. Logistics and distribution of potable water and arable land is problematic in micorocosm but not a limiting factor anywhere near current state at a holistic level.

Malthus was wrong. So have been all his acolytes so far. Of course there must be some limit, but nobody has demonstrated a good rtecord of telling us where it is yet.

The population density of earth's land (excluding Antarctica even) is almost exactly that of Afghanistan - hardly a place most would call cramped. Of frequent DU models for excellent places to live it's 1/3 that of Denmark, 1/5 of Germany's population density and about 1/8 of the Netherlands.

[amborin]

14. ?

"we don't know if it's scary"

have you not read articles about ecological devastation due to overpopulation?

[dmallind]

18. Yes - and I understand them so I know they are specific not holistic

Just because there are too many people in area A does not mean there are too many people on the planet.

[amborin]

28. ?

there are thousands of "area As"

and massive ecol devastation due to over-pop

[dmallind]

29. ...and tens of thousands of area Bs with no such problems

Again - the earth has a population density similar of 46ppl/sq km. Tell us how many it can support and show us why if you want anybody sensible to buy the panic.

[teknomanzer]

120. Populations tend to aggregate around areas of abundant resourses.

So you can pretty much assume that that such areas are pretty dense right about now. And just in case you have not been paying attention the effects of global warming are progressing faster than climatologist's models would have predicted. There is already evidence of rising sea levels which will affect densely populated coastal areas. This whole thread has missed the bullseye altogether. We have already reached the limit. Moscovites might have the right idea - get drunk and drown - it might be better than what is surely coming. There will be a population reduction.

Sorry if that scares the living shit out of everyone - it surely scares the crap of me. I try to ignore it daily - but if you look at what is happening the abyss is right there staring back.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. dmallind, you're operating under the mistaken assumption that 100% of the biome is for human use.

In other words, if 90% of a country is forest and the remaining 10% is all city, with no more farmland, there's no overpopulation, right?

Just convert more land from Mother Nature to single-cultivar single-species use.

It doesn't become a problem until we're a planetwide city, by your logic, and by then, according to the "scientific" growthists, it won't be.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. Moreover, despite the suburban ideals believed by Americans, overpop =/= density.

An area can embrace density in order to compensate for exceeding the carrying capacity without destroying its OWN environment, such as in Europe. This is GOOD. (Europe is STILL being systematially suburbanized and deforested, however, bbut abandonment of family farms offsets it.)

With fewer farms and most people living in cities, the resulting "urban paradises" will have to depend on the Third World for imported food from countries that are starving. This is BAD.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwins_nightmare

[Warpy]

10. Many scientists are predicting as steep a drop

some by the end of this century and some by the end of the next century due to starvation brought about by climate change and, to a lesser extent, HIV becoming endemic.

However, if people want to do something about it now, they need to invest in women instead of investing in men and children. Women whose only worth is as baby machines will become just that. Women who have been given the means to start shoestring businesses or who have been educated beyond primary school have worth outside childbearing and will limit the latter accordingly. That's been proven over and over again, but male dominated agencies are generally resistant to the idea of raising the status of women.

[NoNothing]

17. Actually the underlying cause of projected drops

Is increased affluence. As the dirt-poor become only working poor, their desire to have huge families decreases dramatically.

Large families are closely associated with subsistence communities. As subsistence living is wiped out, population growth will slow.

[Warpy]

19. It also correlates with the low status of women

which is why birth rates in patriarchal religious groups are always very high.

Just raising income doesn't do a thing. You have to raise the status of women.

Have. To.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. So you want to quadruple the resource consumption of quadruple the current pop of the planet

And think that the resulting "increase in affluence" will be distributed equitably?

All evidence to the contrary?

[Ernesto]

12. This is why I was a member of ZPG!

For thoughtful people back in those days, it was already too late.
Add repuke pandering to religion (NO birth control policy), we are now where we are today.
http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/political-social-movements/what-zero-population-growth-movement

[Statistical]

20. ZPG for the win!

Eventually the human race will accept that a geometric growth can not continue.

Either population will be curbed artificially or it will be curbed by starvation, wars, ethnic cleansing, plague, etc. Even a limited nuclear war for example would knock a billion people off the planet buying us 20-30 years more rapid population growth.

Imagine two graphs. One looks like our stock market recently (rapid growth and rapid declines), the other looks asymptotic (curving to the right with slowing growth approaching a flat line).

Population growth WILL look like one of those two graphs. ZPG (or more realisticly minimal population growth) is the far more progressive and humane solution.

[NoNothing]

22. Define "artificially"

Why is it impossible that, as the cost of having children grows higher (due to increased scarcity of consumables), people simply choose to have fewer children? This seems to be the most likely scenario, and has the advantage of not requiring draconian violations of peoples' civil liberties. Do you group this as an "artificial" curb, and if so why?

[Ernesto]

23. Try China nt

[NoNothing]

27. What about it?

I'm not following your point.

[Ernesto]

46. IMHO, China's decades old "one child" birth control policy

Is an "artificial" method.

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm

[Statistical]

30. For most the world high number of children is the most beneficial option

Take most of the 3rd world. There is no social security. Your social security is that your children will be propserous enough that you don't die of starvation in your old age. More children is simply stacking the deck.

By "artificial" at a minimum we need to removing existing "artificial" subsidies for having children. I know I will get slammed for this but here goes.
a) removing child tax credit.
b) requiring parents to pay for public school (note this would be on sliding scale based on ability to pay).

In the third world we need to promote systems like SS so that each generation doesn't feel the need to have large families to support them.

I am not in favor a "one child only" policy like China has however we need to:
a) stop subsidizing children.
b) develop social structures globally that eliminate the need for high birthrates.
c) work to change social policy so that not having children is consider socially acceptable.

[NoNothing]

35. Fundamentally we don't disagree then

I see the solution to the "problem" of overpopulation as relatively straightforward: bring as many second- and third-world regions to a standard of living on parity with that of the first-world regions as possible.

This may seem counterintuitive, I admit, as resource consumption per-capital would increase. But, by reducing the social and economic pressure to create additional "capitis," along with increased efficiency from technological improvement, overall consumption remains sustainable.

[Statistical]

39. I would change "standard of living" to

"standard of living" and "social safety net".

One problem for example is China. Standard of living is rising but there is no concept of pensions or social security thus while wealth accumulation is rising it is still safer to have multiple children (to hedge your bets). China has artificially "solved" that by one child program however if other countries adopt that radical increase in wages/wealth/prosperity without also creating a progressive social systems (like social security for example) or at least adoption some strict controls on births you will have real problems.

While I don't support China policy in the absence of a social safety net no policy would be far worse. You would see a exponential rise in resource consumption due to geometric rise in population combined with geometric rise in resource consumption.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Leaving aside the tax credit: for one, public education is a cornerstone of civilized democracy.

That means, yes, it is a common good and a common value, and if anything, it needs to be MORE adequately funded- yes, by everyone.

I mean, honestly, "liberalism" is supposed to be about accepting that some things- like, say, health coverage- are common, societal goods that we all are invested in, even if we all are not directly benefiting at any given time. Basically, you're suggesting that we privatize education.

As for c), below- the idea that not having children is "not socially acceptable" is only in the paranoid heads of non-parents with too much time on their hands, IMHO. Those of us who actually DO have kids generally don't have the time (even if we did have the inclination, which we don't) to give a shit if you are having kids, or not.

[MineralMan]

15. It is scary. It's been around for a long time. It's why I never

had children.

[YOY]

21. Just wait until the pandemic! It's gonna be off the hook, yo!!!

n/t

[L0oniX]

24. The countries that have food and the military to protect it will rule.

Of course climate change will most likely fuck it all up.

[NoSheep]

99. The corporations that have a military to protect them will rule.

[The Straight Story]

31. We just need more control over womens' bodies

:evilgrin:

[Xithras]

32. We slashed infant mortality without slashing birthrates.

Humans are having just as many babies as they've always had, but most of them live to adulthood nowadays. 1500 years ago, one out of every two children worldwide died of disease, injury, or starvation before their 15th birthday. If you had a baby, it was an even coin flip as to whether they'd live long enough to become parents themselves. When you factored in deaths from other causes (young males being dragged off to war, young women suffering from astronomical childbirth death rates), the average family needed to have five or six children just to keep the overall population stable.

Medicine improved, nutrition improved, vaccinations improved. Today, even in countries like Sierra Leone, which are generally regarded as having the worst mortality rates in the world, only about one in five children die before adulthood. That number is astronomical when compared to the United States and Europe, but it's still a fraction of the child mortality rates that humanity endured for most of its history. Even in the most war-torn and backward parts of the world, basic medicines and donations from aid groups keep most kids alive.

The problem is that we stopped the babies from dying, but did nothing to reduce the number of them being conceived. Population boom.

[Oregone]

36. To compensate, everyone should report to the SleepShop at 21 years of age

[Posteritatis]

43. Birthrates have been going down for awhile. (nt)

[Statistical]

49. How the relative difference is what maters.

If infant mortality rate gets cut in half, adult life expectency increases 50%, and birthrate declines by 20% that isn't going to balance.

[Posteritatis]

56. "going down," not "has gone down"

Birthrates have declined, are continuing to decline, and are expected to continue to decline.

[Statistical]

57. Once again the relative change is what matters.

It is possible birthrate will CONTINUE TO DECLINE however infant mortality will decline at a faster rate and as such the population will continue to grow.

So I will say it once last time.
Relative change is what matters and so far the relative change has resulted in a growing population. Growth is slowing however it hasn't stabilized or turned negative yet.

[Hannah Bell]

117. world total fertility rate 1995-2002 = 2.82 children. world fertility forecast

at 2.02 by 2045-2050 (if present trends continue).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

[Hannah Bell]

118. no they're not. birthrates have declined in practically every country on earth.

world fertility rate per woman is <3, & still declining.

[pansypoo53219]

37. WE NEED ABORTION.

IVF, industrial brirthing complex, immunizations. we are letting the weak survive. way back before modern medicine, far more children didn't survive childhood diseases. we needed HIV. hell, we need nice pandemic.

[The Straight Story]

41. You go first

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

70. What a sick fucking post.

A 'nice' pandemic? Sure--- if it's not you or your kids doing the dying. Fucking barf. :puke:

[MellowDem]

38. Actually growth is already dramatically slowing...

even in many developing countries. Some think it will level out around 9 billion or so before starting to drop again.

[Statistical]

52. Well there is some debate on that.

Birth rate have slowed slightly but nowhere near what is needed to hold population below 9 billion. The medium and long projections are based on changes in society and family size which don't exist yet.

The good news is birthrates have slowed. One can see that on a macro level by looking at amount of time needed to grow global population by 1 billion.

Population was ~2 billion in 1927.
It took 33 years to hit 3 billion (1960).
It only took 14 more years to hit 4 billion (1974).
It only took 13 more years to hit 5 billion (1987)
It only took 12 more years ea to hit 6 & 7 billion (1999 & 2011 -projected).

The projections are it will take almost 14 years (length growing) to hit 8 billion.
Nine billion will take at least 20 years.

So the growth curve has been bent. However it remains to be seen how much it will bend.

Not quite the doomsday some people make it out to be but on the other hand not something we can just ignore.

[MellowDem]

62. There sure is...

but notice how the middle line, basically between the best and worst scenarios, levels out around 9 billion.

I think history has showns us that population rates can and will change dramatically in developing countries, and even somewhat predictably. Then there is the fact that scarcer resources lead to lower population rates.

Definitely not something to ignore.

[Statistical]

65. Agreed it certainly is doable.

What is important is progressive social safety net.

People in developing nations have very large families for 3 reasons
a) infant mortality - this is self solving
b) societal pressures - can be combated with education
c) lack of social safety net.

The third one requires some forward thinking. Many families have lots of children because after they can no longer work children are a source of shelter/food/revenue. Having more children stacks the deck in favor of the parents. Without social safety programs (like social security, savings accounts, pensions, insurance, etc) that won't change.

A tragedy of commons. Each individual will do what is in their best interest. Given that any program will take a generation to see the full effect it is important for that to start soon if we want to maintain that middle line (and 9 billion cap).

[Hosnon]

40. This one might make you feel slightly better:

If I recall correctly, this is the standard model for population growth.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. The standard model for whose population growth?

Certainly not pop. growth in developed countries.

[Hosnon]

123. Any population, specifically not limited to humans.

Once a population's resources are tapped out, growth levels off.

[CrispyQ]

47. "The population explosion is just a left wing scare tactic.

Look at all the wide open space in Wyoming - there's still plenty of room on the planet."


Read, in a LTTE, several years ago. :wow:

[FBaggins]

48. This graph is ALSO

an excellent example of "How to Lie with Charts"

Graph the same thing on a logarithmic scale and it will almost certainly be close to a straight line.

Draw the same chart for the year when the population crossed the 2Billion line (but with a y-axis only going to 2.25 Billion) and the graph with look the same. It will imply that population is now on a vertical unsustainable line and is doomed to collapse... even though reality shows that it more than tripled from there.

[FooshIt]

51. why graph it on a logarithmic scale

when the available resources aren't growing exponentially? Over population is the problem

[FBaggins]

53. Because that's the proper way to graph the data.

It's how you tell whether the rate of growth has changed or not.

Over population is the problem

Whether true or not, it isn't something that this graph can tell you (though it obviously dishonestly intends to do just that). You're stuck with circular reasoning.

[FooshIt]

74. the rate of growth is not what is important

even a decreased rate of growth will eventually lead to catastrophe. The problem is the sheer number of humans we have on the planet. The grsph does an excellent job of showing how the number of humans has increased.

[Statistical]

77. Of course rate of growth is important.

People in developed world have half the birth rate of those in developing world.

US population growth is essentially 0% (without immigration we will begin to shrink as baby boomers die off).

One of the largest problems is the fact that for societal and economic reasons it is BENEFICIAL (for the individual) to have large families in developed world. Changing that will take multiple generations. It will be far easier to bend the curve over next 1000 years than it would be over next 20.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. US pop is consuming exponentially more resources (land, food, cars, homes, computers) each year.

Without exponential population growth from immigration, which requires endlessly renewable cheap labor, the US standard of living and the US retirement investment system (which is based on real estate speculation) WOULDN'T EXIST.

[Statistical]

97. "US pop is consuming exponentially more resources each year.

kinda hard to have a discussion when you use terms that are obviously false.

If the US used exponentially more resources each year we would have stripped the entire planet clean a century ago.

[UndertheOcean]

55. Logarithmic graph ? your post makes no sense , it is not about the graph

it is about Exponential growth , which can never be sustained.

Whether we like it or not the growth rate will get to 0% or undershoot to negative values .... we can only hope to use our intelligence as a species to make those corrections as painless as possible.

Since most people have no math skills a graph is the best way to demonstrate what is happening to them.

[FBaggins]

59. Of course it's "about the graph"

You didn't by any chance notice the title of the thread you posted, did you?

it is about Exponential growth , which can never be sustained.

"Never be sustained" indefinitely? Of course not... but the way the graph is drawn attempts to demonstrate that the "unsustainable" limit has been reached. Is the limit "here"? or ten years from now? Or a hundred or a thousand? It's worth study/debate, but the graph tells us nothing about the truth of the matter.


Since most people have no math skills a graph is the best way to demonstrate that is happening to them.

And the simplest way to lie to them. As this graph does.

Like I said above... graph the SAME data through the 2 Billion line and things will look JUST as unsustainable... yet the population more than tripled.

[Statistical]

67. Here is logarithmic graph...

Africa is the largest area of uncertainty.

[FBaggins]

69. Less a graph of facts than of assumptions.

Note that now it's just 1950 to 40 years in the future... while almost all curving is in the future (and thus subject to the author's assumptions).

Note also that the author has given himself a great deal of wiggle room. World population is predicted to be somewhere between unchanged and doubled over the next 40 years.

But it does take the "scare" out of the original graph. The period above is essentially verticle over this period

[Statistical]

76. Well any projeciton has to be based on assumptions.

However the "author" is the UN. Global warming is a series of assumptions and projections however I give both this graph and global warming graph equal validity.

[Hannah Bell]

119. africa is also the least densely populated continent outside antarctica, & the poorest.

its people use less resources per capita than the rest of the world.

[mike_c]

60. you've just explained one of the properties of exponential growth...

...quite nicely, while ignoring the most ecologically important. Of course an exponential curve will plot as a straight line on an log scale, and likewise, as long as the parameters remain the same, the slope of subsets will be the same as the slope of the whole growth curve.

Now tell me what population has EVER maintained exponential growth indefinitely? There are none. Nada. Exponential growth CANNOT be maintained in a finite universe. It is simply not possible.

The growth curve for human populations is worrisome because we know the growth rate must begin to diminish UNLESS the population is substantially reduced. Use the Verhulst-Pearl model to predict the outcome. EITHER the global human population must approach a steady state, more or less, or it must be reduced below the inflection point in the growth curve in order to maintain maximum growth rate-- all this presumes sustainable resources, of course, which is another matter altogether-- or it will likely overshoot and begin to oscillate, at least if it behaves theoretically. But imagine the human cost of those "adjustments." They will be horrendous.

On edit: the above is only true in a closed environment, of course. I'll let you make what you will of that caveat.

[FBaggins]

63. A common fallacy.

The fact that population cannot grow exponentially forever is of course true... but taking that statement as evidence that it cannot grow exponentially for 5/10/50/100 more years is incredibly poor logic.

Once again... the conclusion MAY be true (I don't know), but it isn't demonstrated here.

The growth curve for human populations is worrisome because we know the growth rate must begin to diminish UNLESS the population is substantially reduced.

And people have been saying that for at least the last five billion people. So far they have been wrong.

[mike_c]

72. I don't think they have been wrong....

See my comments up thread to Oregonian. I think the notion of a thermodynamic carrying capacity is incorrect in practice, or at least its little more than a useful construct for modeling population dynamics. And I agree with you that the current exponential growth shows little sign of approaching any sort of equilibrium, which makes it hard to accept slow-growth approach to Verhulst-Pearl steady state. On the other hand, with even short time lags and high intrinsic growth rates, the VP logistic model does exhibit dynamics that are really similar to exponential growth through a population overshot, followed by oscillations or crashes.

But that's just theoretical modeling in order to understand population dynamics, not to predict actual outcomes. I only bring it up because one would think, looking at "classical" sigmoid models of population growth and the graph posted in the OP, that human population has either not even reached it's midpoint inflection or it's just reaching it, at worst.

But remember that in real populations there is often lots of interaction between demographics, environmental resources, and whatever we want to call the Verhulst-Pearl K parameter (I like equilibrium or steady state population rather than "env. carrying capacity"). The upper limits to growth are dynamic, not static, and simply living in a habitat often works to lower them. The ceiling could be miles above our collective heads, as it clearly was during the nineteenth century, or it could be metaphorical inches away-- or we might have even passed through it already, if the dynamical behavior of VP population growth accurately mirrors the possibilities of real populations.

Finally, one other comment-- even if the human population growth ceiling is still miles away, the most benign approach possible in a logistic scenario calls for diminishing growth rate past the inflection point. That's easy to say when we're talking about theory, but every single fraction of that decline will be accompanied by human misery. Every alteration of slope requires a decrease in fecundity and an increase in mortality, unless we find somewhere else to immigrate to, of course. Fewer successful pregnancies, and more death through disease, warfare, and starvation. I mean, how far do you want to test the assertion that there's plenty of excess capacity still?

edit: whoa, sorry about all the typos!

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. The present population is unsustainable EVEN IF it were steady state. You are comparatively wealthy

enough not to realize it.

Most Americans are not only comparatively wealthy enough, but unobservant enough of the built environment and/or dismissive enough of the rights of the land to remain uninhabited, so to speak (in America, undeveloped land is classified as "unimproved") that they don't realize how much the natural world is already on the verge of extinction.

You simply need to look at satellite maps and stop mentally blocking out the human "improvements" that eviscerate the landscape at every turn.

The only wild land left is unimprovable, poorly producing waste land.

That's why the "great herds of wildlife" went kaput 100 years ago.

[Bigmack]

50. Mom... you remember Mom Nature, don't you....

has a way - several ways - of reducing a population of animals to the proper carrying capacity of their range. Humans or lemmings... all the same to Mom.

Read "Overshoot" by William Catton.

[DCBob]

61. It actually correlates with Peak Oil and will likely follow it down as well.

that's even more scarier.

[Terry in Austin]

95. Oil equals food

The amount of food we have is directly proportional to the amount of oil we have, since we have such a petroleum-intensive food production system.

In any population, population size is a function of food supply: more food, more population; less food, less population. Not hard to see, then, that population size will shrink as oil supplies dwindle, just as it expanded when oil supplies increased.

Lotsa turmoil in that little verb "shrink," however...

[earth mom]

64. I've argued with people here on DU saying that they don't want big brother to tell them

how many kids they can have.

But jeez, do ya think that maybe people can figure it out themselves and STOP having so many damn kids in order to save our planet?!

It's NOT rocket science! Use birth control!!! :argh:

[Warren DeMontague]

71. So- you're in favor of telling the people *in the countries where population growth is exploding*

how many kids they can have?

Really?

Or, you're just in favor of telling the people you don't like, in THIS country, who you have to share the restaurant with, how many kids they can have?

Just curious.

[earth mom]

80. Again-it's not rocket science and you know it. There is a population explosion problem

which is obvious around the world-so wake the fuck up and stop popping out babies.

It's not up to a government entity to tell people they are being selfish and destructive.

People have to realize it on their own and change it themselves.


Obviously you could give a fuck-so go on and enjoy your destruction of the planet-because it's on YOU at this point dude.

Hope you can live with the idea that your future grandkids WILL starve.

[Statistical]

82. However the govt can NOT ENCOURAGE it.

Say there is too much drunk driving. Sure people need to take responsibility however if the govt offered you a tax credit every time you got busted w/ a DUI that would contribute to the problem.

"Obviously you could give a fuck-so go on and enjoy your destruction of the planet-because it's on YOU at this point dude."
Me and my wife had made the conscious choice to not have children. A little elective surgery and it is no longer possible for that to happen even accidentally. Most of my extra income goes to college funds for my nieces and nephews. If anything we have decided we might adopt at some point in the future.

So insults aside you are preaching to the choir. Personal responsibility is important however the govt has a role. The time of govt encouraging birth rates is long past. It is possible that both some individual AND some governments are being irresponsible.

[earth mom]

83. I didn't reply to your post #75 in case you didn't notice-I replied to someone else.

So how could I be insulting you personally?

Actually, I have no problem with your view of this issue.

[Statistical]

84. oops.

:rant: -----> :blush:

[earth mom]

85. No worries...it happens.

:hi:

[Statistical]

86. I had such a good misplaced rant going though...

you should reply to my post so I can use it. Just kidding.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. No, I'm the one you were throwing your incoherent, spittle-laced insults at.

Why, I'm not really sure, although I have noticed that some of the self-proclaimed "activists" on this issue invariably freak the fuck out when people point out exactly WHERE the so-called "population explosion" is actually taking place.

[earth mom]

110. The population explosion is EVERYWHERE in case you haven't noticed.

I moved away from overcrowded and polluted So Cal because it was a nightmare to live there unless you lived on the beach and could breathe some fresh air.

When I left, it took 2 hours to go 20 miles on the freeway at rush hour and often at other times of the day too.

Sorry, but I don't want to live like that nor do I like seeing the planet pillaged and destroyed for trees, oil, fish, etc.

Few have worried about the future and now things are about to turn ugly as there are no jobs, no money and people are desperate to eat and keep a roof overhead.

Meanwhile, you think it's fine and dandy to carry on so thoughtlessly.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. No. It's not. Whether Southern California is overcrowded (who knew?!) is beside the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

There is a tremendous amount of open space and cheap real estate in lots of places- like Buffalo, NY... or Detroit! :think:

I'd suggest you move there, if you're feeling crowded.

[earth mom]

124. Your arguments are ridiculous in this day and age.

Overpopulation is destroying the planet and pitting people against each other fighting for oil, fish, trees, space etc.

It's as plain as day, except to those like you who live in denial.

So spare me your charts and other bullshit.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. The chart is "bullshit"?

Wow, yes, please don't be bothered with actual facts and data. Speaking of "bullshit" charts, that's how the thread got started- with an extremely goofy graph that tells us, yes, there are more people on Earth than there were in the time of the Roman Empire (O NO!). Funny, though, you didn't swear at the OP.

Like I said. LA is crowded, Detroit is not. Do you think that's because no one in Detroit has babies?

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Wow. Touchy, huh?

Actually, my point is, in countries like the US, and in Europe, where people have a decent standard of living, access to contraception, and a high degree of personal autonomy (particularly from religious "authorities") the "population explosion problem" tends to take care of itself.

There is not a "population explostion problem" in the United States. Birth Rates are well within manageable levels.

So I don't know who you think you're lecturing, and for what- like I said, give people the tools, and they tend to regulate their reproductive rates on their own.

[Statistical]

75. Subsidies were put into place to encourage population growth.

Given rapid growth is no longer desired those subsidies should no longer exist.

I am no heartless I would even grandfather (or would it be grandchild) in existing subsidies for children who are already born.

Something as simple as child tax credit expires for any child born after 01 JAN 2012.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I think 3 things make the most sense: Improved economic conditions, easy access to contraception

and telling religious entities and self-appointed morality poo-bahs to fuck off.

Those 3 things seem to be the fastest route to a self-regulating reproductive rate.

Edit: Oh, wait, you're talking about a tax credit, so presumably you mean the United States. You must not be aware that the fertility rate in the US hovers at just about 2.04, or barely above replacement rate. Population growth has actually DROPPED significantly in the past several decades- in this country.

So, eliminate the tax credit here... why? Because there's a population problem in other countries? How would that help?

[Statistical]

107. US could benefit from an EVEN LOWER birth rate.

It help global birthrate average, and would ease immigration pressure (immigration quotas are based on "sustainable" population growth). Higher natural birth rate reduces immigration quotas for the year.

US could have a significant negative natural population growth rate and still have a sustainable population by simply increasing the immigration net influx into the country.


The point is we subsidize something that doesn't need subsidizing. Say most people drove efficient vehicles. Would it make sense to subsidize Hummers? Of course not. Regardless of how "low" the US birthrate is there is no reason to subsidize increased children at this point. I agree with your other 3 points but there is no reason to have a child tax credit anymore. To be fair and retroactive I would simply end the tax credit for all children born after 2012. That way existing families (and expecting families) would continue to receive the tax credit that existed at the time they had children. The credit would be phased out to 0 as children naturally hit 18. By 2030 there would be no child tax credit in the US.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Having a negative birth rate here would do diddly shit for the places where population growth is a

real problem. You could have zero births in the US, it wouldn't help the places in Africa where the fertility rate is 6, 7....

If you don't like the child tax credit, if you don't think people with kids deserve a tax break, etc... go ahead and make that argument, politically (while you're at it, tell Americans they should stop reproducing so that more immigrants can come in to the country. Really. Good luck with that one. :rofl:) ... but be honest with what you're about- it has nothing to do with the "population problem" in the world, it's about something else entirely.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Here's another graph for you:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+growth+united+states

The lesson is, in places where people can make their own decisions and have access to contraception, they limit their own population growth just fine.

[Bill McBlueState]

78. "a taboo issue that no one likes to talk about"

I disagree; this thread is one of the more compelling reads I've had today.

[mike_c]

81. in fact, that is the best possible growth curve for human population to have....

OK, take a breath and stay with me for a moment.

That graph shows exponential or log-phase population growth. Putting aside questions about the limits to growth-- just for a moment, because we can't put them aside forever-- but ignoring them for a brief moment, log-phase growth is the mark of a happy and healthy population, more-or-less. More to the point, it's the mark of a population that has sufficient resources to sustain it's maximal growth rate. When that exponential curve begins to tip over toward a sigmoid approach to some maximum sustainable steady state population, if it ever actually does (there are other ways to approach the maximum, all likely even worse), every diminishment of its slope will represent human suffering on a global scale, and as Garrett Hardin noted, we can only achieve a steady state equilibrium population when we reach the point where there are no "surplus" resources left to support anything but minimal human survival. No art, no poetry, no travel, no nothing but keeping the meat minimally alive.

If I recall correctly, the last time such a natural decline in population growth rate happened in recent history was during the thirteenth century black death epidemic. Does anyone really want to go there?

There are two alternatives. Hardin dismisses the first one and I will too: education about the consequences of overpopulation. Voluntary reduction in birth rate will only have a positive impact if it leads to an artificial equilibrium population that's lower than the theoretical maximum. Despite many societies reducing their birth rate through education, the overall trend in human population growth remains essentially exponential, showing little if any sign of decreasing. Hardin offers other explanations that are compelling but I'll simply offer the most pragmatic. The rate at which education is reducing birth rates globally is much slower than the time it would take to accomplish universal education. In other words, unless we can convince people to stop reproducing MUCH faster than we are now, it's unlikely to make much of a global difference in the long run.

The other alternative is much more attractive on one level. It entails keeping that happy growth curve-- allowing humans to reproduce as fast as they want and their resource base will allow. Just about any time in prior human history, especially prior to the industrial revolution, there was demonstrably plenty of excess capacity for human population growth at a rate that reflected plenty of resource availability-- again, speaking in global terms. It just required that we have far fewer people on the planet to begin with.

So here's a modest proposal of sorts: the best solution-- in terms of quality of life-- is to continue living more-or-less as we are. In order to do that, we need to either significantly reduce human population AND keep reducing it whenever it passes some threshold-- did I mention that we'll have to decide that number and how we're going to cull the herd?-- OR roll out some new planets for humans to expand to, which will achieve the same thing.

The point is, the "good" place to be is on the bottom half of an exponential growth curve, NOT at the top of an equilibrium growth curve, and the only way to do that is to insure that the human population is kept relatively low by some means other than topping out.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. Actually, the black death resulted in a flowering of wealth & culture due to the resulting surplus.

Due to surplus resources,

and the resulting end of feudalism as labor
became more valuable than capital/lordship.

For better or worse, that is the current historical consensus.

[mike_c]

98. sorry, I must not have been clear....

It's obvious that there were at least globally abundant resources during the 13th century. I only meant that the black death(s) produced the most conspicuous consistent and significant decline in slope that we know of in the human population growth curve.

My point is that any such change in slope-- what many folks simply think of as "approaching carrying capacity" like that means the tour bus has most of its seats filled-- MUST be accompanied by conditions that humans will find horrific.

edit-- oops, I really misread your comment, didn't I? I'll leave my response up because I think it's relevant, but you're right-- after the black death things eventually flowered. Lots of speculation about the reasons, including inventions like the mouldboard plow meant to overcome the labor shortage that followed population collapse in Europe.

[canetoad]

101. Round figures only

Earth Population: 7 billion
Earth land surface: 150 million square kms
Arable land, supporting permanent crops: 4% of land surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)

Giving each and every happy inhabitant of earth a plot around 10 feet square on which to live, grow, eat and die.

[Hannah Bell]

121. huh?

[jimlup]

102. I agree that this is actually fundamentally linked to peak-oil and global warming...

[Nye Bevan]

108. Don't worry. I drove through Vermont last weekend.

We still have plenty of space available.

[ZombieHorde]

112. No doubt our population growth is troubling, but what is the solution? nt

[Kablooie]

125. Nature has a solution waiting for us.

They have done studies with rats that were extremely overcrowded.
The result was that they became violent and started killing each other off until the population became small enough to be sustainable again.

Unfortunately, unless our species is wiser than we seem right now, that will be the solution.

[Lucian]

115. Indeed it is.

Mother Nature will take care of a lot of us if the world keeps getting populated with a really bad virus, where billions could possibly suffer.

[readmoreoften]

122. Oh great. Malthusian BS.

[UndertheOcean]

127. Ok , I'll bite , why is it bullshit ?