[Ibon]

Why mess with genes when we already have the masses socialized exactly where governments, corporations and religions want them. These macro institutions have already mastered the socialization of the masses to do their bidding. We don't need gene therapy.

It is actually in many ways better to have a dumbed down compliant masses who go blindly to work and ask for so little out of life. They leave a lot of room for the rest of us.

I am a member of the 1%. Not in my monetary wealth but in being emancipated from consensus reality. I rather like being in such a small minority. I rather like the vast majority of humanity being self contained and confined in socialized boxes that keep them obedient to the macro institutions to whom they are compliant.

Let's keep things just as they are please.

[onlooker]

Interactive World population site

http://worldpopulationhistory.org/map/1 ... or/1/0/25/

[Ibon]

I now have second thoughts on gene therapy to solve human overshoot. Dwarfing is the intentional breeding of dwarf versions of animals. We do this with dogs and horses. Why not use gene therapy to do this to humans, bringing the average size of humans down to say 2 feet tall and weighing no more than 30 pounds. Calorie intake would be greatly reduced. Mass transit and airplanes could handle thousands of passengers. Housing and automobiles could be made at a fraction of their current size.

Our species ecological foot print would be greatly reduced.

That's it. The solution to all our problems.

[Tanada]

I now have second thoughts on gene therapy to solve human overshoot. Dwarfing is the intentional breeding of dwarf versions of animals. We do this with dogs and horses. Why not use gene therapy to do this to humans, bringing the average size of humans down to say 2 feet tall and weighing no more than 30 pounds. Calorie intake would be greatly reduced. Mass transit and airplanes could handle thousands of passengers. Housing and automobiles could be made at a fraction of their current size.

Our species ecological foot print would be greatly reduced.

That's it. The solution to all our problems.

A dogs brain is only about the size of a walnut so shrinking their skull from wolf size to shiatsu size doesn't effect brain development. Taking a average 5 foot human and shrinking them to 2 foot with a requisite shrinkage of the brain case on the other hand would reduce the species to around Rhesus monkey size brain power. Alternatively if you keep an adult head on that monkey size body you get an extremely top heavy mal proportioned structure that I can not imagine would be pleasant to look upon or be around.

I think you could manage say 4', the size of an African pygmy and save a lot of consumption without going off the deep end.

Why mess with genes when we already have the masses socialized exactly where governments, corporations and religions want them. These macro institutions have already mastered the socialization of the masses to do their bidding. We don't need gene therapy.

It is actually in many ways better to have a dumbed down compliant masses who go blindly to work and ask for so little out of life. They leave a lot of room for the rest of us.

It isn't the mass of humanity that is going to be engineered, it is the 1%, perhaps event the 10% if it is cheap enough. The engineered will be as physically appealing and mentally structured as science can manage and they will look at the 'natural' 1% the same way those folks look at Joe6P. Live long enough and you might enjoy the irony of the elites getting put in their place by the engineered who will follow.

Heck if you want to go down KaiserJeep's road to the borg you can even add biological wifi receiver organs to the engineered so they can network like the telepaths in all those old stories. People seem to think Telepathy was invented with Star trek but stories of ind reading and mental connection go back to the stone age! Even Dracula as written by Bram Stoker was able to mentally communicate with his 'brides' from afar and that was 70 years before Star Trek was even written down as an idea. A little gene engineering and Viole' telepathy becomes real.

[dohboi]

Isn't Homo Floresiensis ("hobbit") reputed to have too small a skull for a modern human brain, yet still seems to have had about the same range of abilities (control of fire, complex tool making...) of other larger Homo species of the time? Something of a mystery, as I recall.

But of course, even tiny people can manage to use up enormous resources, if they choose to jet around the globe constantly and drive big humvees. Hey, maybe Plant is really a Hobbit after all!!

[Tanada]

Isn't Homo Floresiensis ("hobbit") reputed to have too small a skull for a modern human brain, yet still seems to have had about the same range of abilities (control of fire, complex tool making...) of other larger Homo species of the time? Something of a mystery, as I recall.

But of course, even tiny people can manage to use up enormous resources, if they choose to jet around the globe constantly and drive big humvees. Hey, maybe Plant is really a Hobbit after all!!

The problem with Homo Floresiensis in this context is stature. Pygmy peoples from different locations around the world range from 4' to 4'6" in height. Best estimates of Homo Floresiensis is that they stood 3'7", which is just 5" shorter than the smaller end of 'pygmy peoples'. Heck I went to school with a brother and sister who were 5'2" and 4'10" respectively, the brother was a good friend of mine who had to get a waiver to join the military as he was under the minimum height requirement.

So redesigning humans to be 4' or 4'6" seems entirely doable, but Ibon's goal of 2' not so much...

[onlooker]

Groundwater Aquifers running out of fresh water. This is directly due to overpopulation or so it seems
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RjsThobgq7Q

[Newfie]

I thought for sure we had a thread in this a while ago but I can’t find it.

Anyway I came across an interesting discussion elsewhere. It strikes me that the more thoughtful posters agree on something between 500 million and 1 billion. A lot of so called “smart guys” either dodge the question, can’t understand it, or can’t think outside some small technical files.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-optim ... e-on-Earth

I’m also linking an old news article from our home page.

https://gizmodo.com/whats-the-ideal-num ... 1821527028

And I’ll throw this in, the guy behind the Global Footprint says we are using arable land at between 10 and 40 times the replenishment rate. That puts between 750 million and 175 million.

[jedrider]

So, nine out of ten of us is a burden on this planet. I suggest we draw straws.

[Newfie]

Straws will be drawn, no doubt.

The he only question is “Do you care to stack the deck?” If it’s even possible.

[Outcast_Searcher]

So, nine out of ten of us is a burden on this planet. I suggest we draw straws.

Well, having far less offspring BEFORE it comes to that, would seem an obvious choice.

I have no kids, and that concept of a finite planet and future consequences of overpopulation is one of the chief reasons.

Of course, I know, thinking ahead longer term is SO "impractical" in a world where a huge proportion of people don't bother to plan much for their own inevitable retirement (if they live to old age).

You'd think the average IQ of people were 70-ish, given the overall behavior of people, especially re longer term planning.

[sparky]

.
Nahh , you draw straws ,

[Outcast_Searcher]

.
Nahh , you draw straws ,

Well, I'm betting Mother Nature will draw them for us at some point. Us geezers will be long dead by then.

[Newfie]

Probably true.

I’ve been wading through the “Lewis and Clark” journals. It tough reading and a lot I skip, there is a lot of repetition between them and also a lot of detailed description of birds, etc.

Their descriptions of the Indians is interesting and a good bit of it was “first contact.” The Indians by this time were highly reliant on horses them having been reintroduced by the Spanish a couple of hundred years before. In the higher elevations the Indians had large numbers of horses but did not use them as a food source. There were a few different roots the Indians are a lot of and they traded to either get different root vegetables or for protein.

Eye problems were widespread including blindness. L&C May it off to sand and dust but don’t report having much problem themselves. It may have been a vitamin deficiency. At times in the higher elevations L&C would kill an animal and share it with the Indians. This tribe was particularly protein deprived and would completely devour the animal, bones skin and all, in the spot.

Even the coastal Indians, whom I had been led to believe led almost idyllic lives, were on mundane and restricted diets.

All in all pretty low population densities where ever they went.


Elsewhere I have read a that the maximum sustainable population of the USA is around 150 million, accounting for water use and to retain the soil quality. I don’t know sounds about right.

I wonder what it is for the UK?

[Newfie]

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level

Global Footprint Network data shows that humanity uses the equivalent of 1.7 planet Earths to provide the renewable resources we use and absorb our waste.1 If all 7+ billion of us were to enjoy a European standard of living - which is about 60% the consumption of the average American - the Earth could sustainably support only about 2 billion people.

https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/ ... ustainable

Still does not account for soil and water depletion.

[Ibon]

I think the optimum population level could be far higher than historical references pre industrial revolution If folks weren't socialized to consume like hogs and found well being in friends, family, good foods and walks in the park, exercised and had gardens, etc.

Many of the sinks we are depleting like soils, water, fisheries are regenerative when exploited in low amounts. Our biosphere also stays within balance with CO2 when consumption is lowered to the level where sequestration takes up the excess. Fossil fuel reserves are huge and if judiciously consumed could fuel civilization for hundreds of years.

If anything defines modern humans it is the unnecessary waste we produce.

We socialize the population away from consumption and the sustainable population numbers shift dramatically. And by the way so does well being.

[jedrider]

We socialize the population away from consumption and the sustainable population numbers shift dramatically. And by the way so does well being.

Why hierarchy creates a destructive force within the human psyche (by dr. Robert Sapolsky)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY

We'll have to kill all the alpha males first which is a tall order.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We socialize the population away from consumption and the sustainable population numbers shift dramatically. And by the way so does well being.

Why hierarchy creates a destructive force within the human psyche (by dr. Robert Sapolsky)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY

We'll have to kill all the alpha males first which is a tall order.

If you don't have leaders, you have chaos. Even if we ended up with 500 million or so people, there needs to be hierarchy to avoid massive chaos.

You can kill off the current set and get a different set. You can decree new rules re hierarchy, and you'll get a different hierarchy. But I think that claiming we can get rid of the need for hierarchy in humans once we advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage is naive to the point of being a non-starter.

Even at the simple farmer level, stocks of food can be stolen, and then THAT has to be dealt with by force, and the whole mess that involves human society/organization begins in earnest. From there it just gets more complex.

[Newfie]

Yeah, as always it starts with the definition.

What is “Optimum”?

For my taste optimum means enough population at a high enough level of development to support our knowledge base and pursue further technical knowledge.

Now hopefully Earth can support that Population, whatever it is. Then we decide to either support more folks, or support existing folks at a higher level.

But then even “maximum population” requires definition. Chicken coop Earth (or USA or UK or ???) OR the maximum that can be supported at some level, which then begs What level?

Anyway I’m gonna postulate something like 150 million for the USA out of 750,000 total.

2¢

[jedrider]

If you don't have leaders, you have chaos.

Who is going to kill the alpha males except alpha males? A conundrum.