[Newfie]

Desue,

Why is it taboo?

Why is that important? It is, that is all we really know.

What to do about it?

Your question contains an assumption that something can be done. That is a bad assumption.

Remove yourself mentally, become a disinterested observer, reflect upon what has been done, on what is happening. Then draw your conclusions about the future path.

[DesuMaiden]

Ok, let me ask you this question. What would the world be like if we had 15 billion people on it? I believe the world would become a hell-hole when that happens. 15 billion people would not be sustainable in the long-term, and most likely a massive die-off will happen after we reach that level of population.

[Newfie]

What is the point of your question?

You seem to know your answer already.

But if you insist, 7 billion is not sustainable. It is unlikely 2 billion is sustainable.

[Tikib]

On this note in the UK over the last 20 years we have become aware of our population and stopped having as many kids. To solve the growth 'problem' created by this the government let in more and more immigrants.

[Tikib]

On this note in the UK over the last 20 years we have become aware of our population and stopped having as many kids. To solve the growth 'problem' created by this the government let in more and more immigrants.

[SeaGypsy]

To government, the biggest worry is always growth. If it comes to risking destroying your own country's culture, if its the only apparent path to growth, pile em in.

[Newfie]

Yup, that's gonna create problems.

I'm a pretty lefty loonie kinda guy, but eventually most will figure out the lifeboat is only so big. Then various groups will form to see which group walks the plank, and which wields the sword.

[DesuMaiden]

What is the point of your question?

You seem to know your answer already.

But if you insist, 7 billion is not sustainable. It is unlikely 2 billion is sustainable.

2 billion is sustainable. 7 billion is not sustainable. I think a population of 2 billion people would definitely be sustainable in the long term on the planet.

[Newfie]

Then you know the answer to your question about wood heating.

[DesuMaiden]

The problem we are facing is that we have a peak everything crisis. All of the essential natural resources on this planet are peaking. We are at peak oil, peak natural gas, peak coal, peak iron, peak rare Earth metals, peak phosphorus, peak fish, peak water, peak wood, peak silicon, peak uranium, and etc. We are going to soon face peak population and peak food too. That's because we are also at peak arable land. We cannot expand the amount of arable land on this planet anymore, even though we need to double food production to meet the demands of the population when it reaches 9 billion people by 2050. I doubt we can double food production in the next couple of decades because there is NO more arable land. And I seriously doubt we can double productivity of food production per acre anymore.

It doesn't matter what we do. We cannot continue infinite consumption and infinite population growth on a finite planet. The root of this problem is that there are too many people, using too much stuff, too quickly, and in an economy that only knows how to grow. We are at peak everything.

Unless we stop population growth immediately, we are doomed as a species, because we already in severe overshoot in population. We should try to reduce the human population gradually in the most humane way possible. And the only way to do that is by having a one-child policy for the entire world. That would gradually and slowly reduce world population to 2 billion or less. This planet can only sustainably support 2 billion or less people as all historical evidence shows.

Just look at a graph of human population. Human population throughout most of recorded history has been well under a billion people. It was only since the early 19th century when the population exceeded a billion people. The population starts to rapidly grow in the 19th century, but it was in the 20th century, starting in 1900, when the population grows in a vertical line. Meaning the population in the 20th century has been growing at an unprecedented rate. Throughout all of human history, the population line is a flat horizontal line, and only during the past 100 years has it been growing in a vertical line. The human population can't grow in a vertical line forever.

Even at only 1% growth per year in population, the population of the world will soon double in 70 years. So by the end of this century, we may have 14 to 15 billion people. The planet's ecosystems are already collapsing under the strain of supporting "only" 7.25 billion people. The whole system is already crumbling under the strain of "only" 7.25 billion people. If you double the number of people on this planet, the planet's ecosystems will quickly collapse. And our population will quickly collapse as a result to a level that's below carrying capacity.

Even 7.25 billion is above the carrying capacity of this planet because we are causing the 6th mass extinction. The fact that there are over 7 billion humans on this planet is the cause of the 6th mass extinction. It is because we are using up all of the resources and land that would otherwise be used by the other organisms for their survival. We are depriving all of the other species of the land and resources they need for survival because we are using all of that stuff up for our survival. 7 billion humans are causing all of the other species on this planet to become extinct because we are stealing all of the resources and land used by other species for our exclusive use. We are overcrowding and stealing resources from other species to support our massive population of over 7 billion, and thereby causing other species to become extinct. It is really that simple.

There is no way we can have 7 billion people live in perfect harmony with nature. That's nonsense. The more humans there are, the less there will be of other species on this planet....it is that simple. The whole problem is restoring balance back to this planet, and reducing human population back down to a level that this planet can handle.

[KaiserJeep]

Nobody understands population overshoot better than me. When I was in the third grade and the 3 billion human population level was surpassed, I thought fearfully that UN Secretary U-Thant would have to do something dramatic to save us all. However I had complete faith in our political leadership, I was the son of a serving military officer and had been taught an unshakable faith in the chain of command.

A decade after that, I was myself wearing a military uniform, and realized with horror that I was surrounded by alcoholics and incompetents of all types, and nobody was really in charge. So I got out and went back to school, studied History, and realized with more horror that political leadership was mostly politics with very little leadership. About that time, we blew through the 4 billion human population level. I watched while the 5B, then 6B, then 7B milestones were surpassed.

Meanwhile, I married and had a single child. I claim no special grace, my wife and I wanted more kids but could not have any. I began to want grandkids, and my kid showed little enthusiasm, working obsessively until age 34 before marrying and age 37 before becoming pregnant with twins.

I find that I want those children. Something deep in my genes requires that I desperately want to grow old surrounded by my own descendants. I want my grandkids to be fruitful and multiply.

Believe me, I know better. I understand there are too many humans, and all too well, I understand the problems that causes on a limited planet.

So I have a solution. Of course, me and my grandkids are not part of the problem. My sisters, brother, and all my nephews and nieces are not a problem. The rest of you, not in my extended family, are clearly the problem.

Therefore as step one in the solution, I want all you Yahoos to schedule surgery and have yourselves spayed. Please encourage your kids to do the same. Me and my descendants will need your living space soon enough, and your food, and your water, and your energy.

That is how I FEEL, deep down inside. Of course, I understand all to well, what the problem is. I have seen with my own eyes, the very real poverty and desperation outside this country, and understand that Americans are hated because we consume more than our fair share of darn near everything.

I merely want to point out that understanding the issues does nothing whatsoever to make those problems go away. Nothing I know of will make that desire deep inside to be a member of a prosperous and growing tribe go away. It is an evolutionary survival instinct. We all feel it.

We all want it, except for a few with defective genes, who would rather spend time amusing themselves than reproducing. But those folks are an evolutionary dead end, not a problem. Each generation, we weed out those defectives who don't want to see their descendants multiplying and occupying all the territory we can see.

We are NOT going to "solve" this problem of overpopulation with reasoning. If my government or anybody else ever expresses to me the desire that I restrain or modify the perfectly natural desire to reproduce, there will be trouble. At 63+ years of age, i would take up arms and do my best to exterminate that government, or anybody else making such a suggestion.

Intellectually, I understand what a problem this represents. But my behavior will derive from the last 100,000+ years of human evolution where the feelings I described represent very real and very accurate survival instincts.

Now do you understand the problem? Only a fool would talk about humans controlling their population levels.

If you want to disagree with me, first schedule the surgery and have yourself sterilized before you reproduce. I will find that a convincing argument. However, nothing you SAY about this topic is very convincing if you dispute the behavior that has shaped our genes since before we had the wits to understand what was happening.

[SeaGypsy]

Just to play devils advocate while you preach to the choir Desu/

Just say somehow there was a global conference on agriculture & population, long term logistics, with as solid as possible data available. The conference decides to mandate & fund moves towards/ crop maximisation, soil loss minimisation, water efficiency, overall sustainability/ ie 100 years+ with available resources.

To your horror or surprise, given the authority & priority funding, we can easily produce far more food than what we do now, very easily & on a lot less land. Not by moving everyone onto permaculture orchards, though that might help if it were possible, but by shifting towards hydroponics/ aquaponics/ crop rotation/ combination planting & crop pairing. By moving away from exposed open soil monoculture, open irrigation channels & dams. By cropping for food value in priority to cash cropping.

It's not actually population at the core of the 6th extinction, it is consumption. It is the lifestyle, the farming style, the priority being given to short term economic gain, unwillingness of pretty much everyone to radically reform the system, social & economic momentum keep us moving in the same direction. Population growth is consequential more than causative. For example if everyone on the planet was living like a typical Australian or American, we would run out of pretty much everything in no time flat. On the flip side, if the improvements in efficiency I touch on above became the norm globally we could probably give half of what we have taken back to nature & still produce enough food to double the population again.

It's up to you where & how you want to focus your view of the future. Things are much more dynamic & rubbery than you presume.

[SeaGypsy]

KJ, are you a young earther cross? 100,000 years? The urge to procreate? No mate, that one is so primal it's like the turtles, or the chicken & the egg.

[DesuMaiden]

SeaGypsy,

You got to be delusional if you think we can double the population again. There is no way we can double the population. We are already at the limits of growth. I said we can't continue BOTH infinite consumption and infinite population growth. And now you are advocating that infinite population growth is somehow possible?

We already maxed out in food production. We have no more arable land. We cannot increase food production per acre anymore. There will be no second Green Revolution. We are at peak everything. Meaning infinite consumption and infinite population growth BOTH need to come to an end.

This world cannot support twice as many people. It doesn't matter how those people live. Even if everyone lived like Africans, there is no way we can support 15 billion or more people. But there is no way you can make North Americans live like Africans to reduce their consumption per capita, although due to resource depletion, they would naturally have to decrease their consumption per capita too. The reason there is a Sixth Mass Extinction is solely because there is too many of us already. 7 billion humans means less for all of the other species on this planet. Unless you accept this fact, we have no hope for the future.

[SeaGypsy]

Clearly you know nothing about agriculture. Hey Pstar, you have a PhD in Agriculture right? I'm sure we have a few experts here who can denounce that line of thinking. Right now there is phenomenal waste in the system from the get go to the plate. Extremely blatantly inefficient methods of agriculture built around cheap energy being taken for granted, on new wild land being endless. That is the system in place. Better systems can triple & more the calorific yields of cropping areas. They can do so without destroying or washing away topsoil. They can produce much higher calorific content instead of luxury crops coffee for example. Besides that, there is enormous amounts of 'fat to trim' in terms of decommissioning all the useless, futile activity which currently constitutes most of the economy. This is all before we have global famine.

I am not saying what is going to happen. I am saying what could happen if society adapts.

Your habit of lecturing people who have been here for years, who are mostly all known to each other over years of sharing thoughts on these matters, as if you are talking to a bunch of year 10 students; who you have clearly not taken the time to read back over what the poster may have said on the subject, about a subject you have really got L plates on is irritating in the extreme. I spent 2 years reading here before I posted a word. Many of the other joining posters after the old guard likewise have done substantial reading here & elsewhere before throwing themselves into conversations. You might not be able to see it, but you are making a fool of yourself. A student teacher yelling at university professors.

[SeaGypsy]

The last time I checked, primary agriculture makes up only 3% of G20 GDP. This 3% of GDP is what keeps food on the table. Add logistics up to about 20% of 15% total logistics, all up growing & distribution is 10% of the economy. The medical systems of most G20 countries are 15%+. So food & medicine, the things which are essential to keep everyone alive as long as possible, amount to 25%, including massive waste in both sectors. So the other 75% can go down the toilet, no famine, no deprivation of medical essentials, tomorrow. That is without reforming either. A massive agriculture revolution could really triple yields. The medical systems could be hugely improved. The main existing economy might be completely screwed, but this does not make either agriculture or medicine impossible. Lots of digits get wiped, like chalk from a blackboard, we start over. It's not actually that radical.

[vtsnowedin]

I don't know Seagypsy but perhaps Desu is playing dumb just to stir the pot. As to increasing yields beyond what they are achieving today with chem fertilizer weed control Ag you will have to show me the full sections yield and all costs including labor. What you can do on a permaculture raised bed with daily hand care and watering does not scale up to a 640 acre section.
And another thing , if you think you can cut off a populations coffee supply without them taking up arms and coming to nail your hide to a wall you have another think coming.

[DesuMaiden]

It is nonsense we can double population and we can still live in harmony with nature. That's total rubbish. There is no way we can even live in harmony with nature with 7.2 billion people, so what makes you think we can live in harmony with nature with 15 billion people? The fact that there is 7.2 billion people on this planet is the reason we are living in a mass extinction right now. Doubling the population, even if that was possible, would mean catastrophe for the human species as we go into severe overshoot and then a die-off. Don't advocate this nonsense we can double population because we can't. We are at or near peak population now.

[SeaGypsy]

Lol! Ok we leave coffee alone.
To just generalise rather than going into another topic, off the shelf shade house/ glasshouse with climate control systems, Trickle irrigation nutrient recycling, ideally via fish ponds, send production through the roof across a huge area of what is currently bare bones farmland losing soil like there is no tomorrow. Combination cropping & rotation is widely known to be able to triple yields when compared to standard intensive. Even in Australia we still have tens of thousands of miles of open ditch irrigation channels. Estimates of waste vary from 30 to 90%. Open ditch irrigation is extremely common around the world with similar losses. Nutrient wastage is the norm around the entire world. Use the sewage to produce biomass, use the biomass to mulch feed crops. Even if the labour cost goes up tenfold, so 30% of people are working in agriculture instead of 3%.

[SeaGypsy]

Sorry Desu, you don't know what you are talking about. It seems you don't know how to have a speculative conversation. You have made your mind up about how things are going to be & you have found a place to yell at people about it. My thought is you need to get out of the box & go somewhere nice where people are enjoying life. Misery breeds contempt"