Prophecies Nobody Wants to Hear, part I of V

[BadBeast]

And there is a very viable plan.  All it requires is that the person enacting it be a moral vacuum, and that it be kept quiet for 5 years, and then deal with mass insanity for about a 15-25 year period.

It would make Stalin and Pol Pot puke their guts up, but it would work. 

At least Pol Pot was a proponent of organic fertilizer.

[Cain]

Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation. Don't feed the fucking poor, don't give them shots to save their lives...let nature do it's work.

Except most famines in Africa are not caused by overpopulation at the present time.  They're caused by leaders using food as weapons of war in their internal and external disputes. 

Even the most famous famine of modern African history, the Ethiopian one which caused Bob Geldof to turn into a self-righteous prick, was caused by Marxist rebels who, after seizing power, went around killing farmers and confiscating their land while upping military spending.  And then, when a bunch of insurgencies popped up, they started razing farms and putting villagers in concentration camps.  Almost every major famine in sub-Saharan Africa has a political origin.

Amartya Sen's research backs this up in the case of the Indian subcontinent as well.  He found during the Bengal famine of 1943, there was plenty enough food to feed the population as a whole...but stockpiling by wealthier sectors of society, acquisition by British troops and price-gouging led to mass starvation.

That's not to say famines in the future wont be caused by an absolute lack of food, only that as things stand now there isn't even anything near an optimal level of food distribution which would offset current population growth.

[Cain]

Famine and disease are the world's way of controlling overpopulation. Don't feed the fucking poor, don't give them shots to save their lives...let nature do it's work.

Except most famines in Africa are not caused by overpopulation at the present time.  They're caused by leaders using food as weapons of war in their internal and external disputes. 

Even the most famous famine of modern African history, the Ethiopian one which caused Bob Geldof to turn into a self-righteous prick, was caused by Marxist rebels who, after seizing power, went around killing farmers and confiscating their land while upping military spending.  And then, when a bunch of insurgencies popped up, they started razing farms and putting villagers in concentration camps.  Almost every major famine in sub-Saharan Africa has a political origin.

Amartya Sen's research backs this up in the case of the Indian subcontinent as well.  He found during the Bengal famine of 1943, there was plenty enough food to feed the population as a whole...but stockpiling by wealthier sectors of society, acquisition by British troops and price-gouging led to mass starvation.

That's not to say famines in the future wont be caused by an absolute lack of food, only that as things stand now there isn't even anything near an optimal level of food distribution which would offset current population growth.

On top of this, trade deals brokered by international organizations run by mostly European and North American countries mean that most third world countries which do have the capacity to feed their own populations are coerced into trade arrangements whereby they have to sell most of their raw materials, such as grains and crops, in order to support their economies and then buy food from European and North American farmers.

[Cramulus]

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is something that requires a global solution. With the exception of the US, most of the world's population growth is happening in underdeveloped countries. In many developed countries, the only reason that the population isn't falling is because people are migrating there. Half of the world's population increase is going to happen in 9 countries.  (India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China.)

Fertility rates fluctuate over time, but right now they are dropping.

We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.

Social solutions are part of it too - some countries are designing programs to make it easier and more socially acceptable to use contraception and get abortions. This would go a long way to stave off the fertility rate in Africa.


Map of countries and territories by fertility rate


Human population growth rate in percent, with the variables of births, deaths, immigration, and emigration - 2006

[Sister Fracture]

We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.

This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.

[Adios]

Resources other than food and water are also finite. Are you seriously proposing we can continue to breed like river rats with no repercussion?

[Cain]

That aside, the UN and Royal Society both do keep a close eye on population growth and projected trends.

For example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901

The world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report.

To have a reasonable chance of stabilising world population, fertility must drop to below "replacement level".

It must then be maintained at that level for an extended period, says the report.

This replacement level is the fertility level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next.

The world population is already poised to reach 7 billion later this year and this figure potentially could double to 14 billion by 2100 if action is not taken.

This is of particular concern for the least developed countries worldwide, which are growing at the fastest rate and are already the most vulnerable to famine.

The UN Population Division have produced six projections of potential future population change based on different changes to fertility level and other factors.

In the medium scenario, world population peaks at 9.4 billion in 2070 and then starts to decline.

However for this to happen, fertility needs to decline significantly in most developing countries.
No guarantee

In recent years, there has been widespread acceptance of the medium scenario as almost a certainty.

However Hania Zlotnik, the Director of the UN Population Division says there is "no guarantee that this scenario will become a reality because high-fertility countries may not reduce their fertility fast enough and countries with intermediate fertility levels may see them stagnate above replacement level".

"Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels."

Now for a while I accepted the medium scenario as the most likely because, well, it was.  Now, however, with economic growth slowing down entirely, we are probably going to see sociological shifts back to the kind of demographic growth that was being seen 20-30 years ago because, hey, no-one's going to have any goddamn jobs anymore, so having children to support you in your old age is the only viable strategy for living past 55.  At the moment it is too soon to say for sure, one way or another, and I'd much prefer the medium scenario to take place, but right now things are not looking too rosy for it.

[Suu]

The earth is one sickening sociology experiment in the end.

[Cramulus]

We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.

This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.

sorry, I'll try to focus harder on the ways in which we are hopelessly and inescapably fucked 

[Luna]

On the up side...

People always talk about how it's the "end of the world."  People are going to starve humanity to death, shit it to death, drown in our own garbage, nuke ourselves to oblivion, pick your apocalypse.  Whatever.

You know what?

The earth is, unless we manage to drop enough nukes to shift it out of orbit and send it spiraling into the sun, gonna be just fine.  Probably better off without us than with us.

Leave it to the cockroaches.  They'll screw it up in their own way in their own time, but, who knows, they might do a better job than we have.

[Suu]

My mom has been saying for years that humans are just some sick twisted experiment between every god ever manifested by human belief. Higher being or not, someone, somewhere, is laughing at us, even if it's Martians.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is something that requires a global solution. With the exception of the US, most of the world's population growth is happening in underdeveloped countries. In many developed countries, the only reason that the population isn't falling is because people are migrating there. Half of the world's population increase is going to happen in 9 countries.  (India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States, Ethiopia, and China.)

Fertility rates fluctuate over time, but right now they are dropping.

Problem is, we're still over the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet.  Cain is correct that most food issues at present are political in nature, but there's no denying that most of our food generating methods are destructive as hell to our arable land (google "ocean dead spots" and look where they are with relation to America, for example...They're all at the output of our rivers).

Then drop waste management, heat, shelter, deforestation, etc into the mix, and we're sitting on a time bomb.  We are adding a net 288,000 people per day, at present.  Even if fertility rates drop significantly, we're still fucked.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On the up side...

People always talk about how it's the "end of the world."  People are going to starve humanity to death, shit it to death, drown in our own garbage, nuke ourselves to oblivion, pick your apocalypse.  Whatever.

You know what?

The earth is, unless we manage to drop enough nukes to shift it out of orbit and send it spiraling into the sun, gonna be just fine.  Probably better off without us than with us.

Leave it to the cockroaches.  They'll screw it up in their own way in their own time, but, who knows, they might do a better job than we have.

I am not interested in the future of a ball of rock or cockroaches.  I am only concerned with the future of human beings.

I am really hoping that I'm becoming a bit too pessimistic and Malthusian, but you know what they say, "hope in one hand, and shit in the other, and observe which one fills up fastest".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology. A lot of our problems which will be compounded by overpopulation may be solved by innovation. For example, finite land space may be addressed through vertical farming or synthetic food. Water shortages could be addressed through better desalinization plants. Our rate of pollution isn't necessarily going to be stable either - it may actually decrease as we use better tech, better science, and better policy.

This seems more like a "It would be nice if..." statement than what seems more plausible.

sorry, I'll try to focus harder on the ways in which we are hopelessly and inescapably fucked 

If it was hopeless, I wouldn't have brought it up. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We're not sure what the earth's real carrying capacity is, and it may be that it's not a hard limit; we can increase it through technology.

The "best guesses" I've seen show a sustainable¹ carrying capacity of about 2 billion with present technology.


¹  Not using this in the hippie/marketing sense.