Discussion Why overpopulation isn't going to be a problem

[Amumu]

Because of this. Fertility rate (2019)
Reminder : below 2.1, the population decreases in the long-run.

 

[Imaginos]

Yes, but it's also irrelevant on account of the fact that omnicide is now in full swing. The numbers are in and it's game over for our species. It's a remarkably safe bet to make that there will be zero humans left standing before the end of this century arrives. I guess extinction is one way to solve the dilemma of overpopulation. No population; no problem.

 

[NumbItAll]

Yikes, some areas at 5+... child birth freaks me out.

 

[WornOutLife]

I will be dead by the time humans go extinct but I wish I could be a witness of all that!
Will we really "disappear"? That's amazing.

 

[Sensei]

Yes, but it's also irrelevant on account of the fact that omnicide is now in full swing. The numbers are in and it's game over for our species. It's a remarkably safe bet to make that there will be zero humans left standing before the end of this century arrives. I guess extinction is one way to solve the dilemma of overpopulation. No population; no problem.

I'm curious what makes you think mankind will go extinct so quickly. I'm convinced that mankind will go extinct within a foreseeable future too, but not as quickly as 80 years. The only ways I can see that this could happen are an all-out nuclear war or an enormous asteroid, two scenarios I don't find very likely.

 

[Imaginos]

I'm curious what makes you think mankind will go extinct so quickly. I'm convinced that mankind will go extinct within a foreseeable future too, but not as quickly as 80 years.

An average global temperature rise of just 3 degrees celcius will render this planet uninhabitable. As it stands, it's likely that we'll see a rise of either 4 or 5, or perhaps higher. 350 ppm Co2 is considered the absolute safe upper limit for the planetary life support systems which our species relies on utterly to survive. At this juncture, we've already passed 400 ppm and, in enough time, it seems likely we'll be passing 500 ppm, which is about as overkill as it gets for wiping out nearly all life on earth. As an example of what I mean, the Permian-Triassic extinction event (otherwise known as the "Great Dying') is what we're currently experiencing and are in the somewhat early stages of. That extinction event was also set off by a runaway greenhouse effect and, in a final tally of the victims, it killed nearly 99% of all life that existed at the time.

Here's the thing though that really ensures our total eradication, and the eradication of nearly all other life. That warming during the PTE took place over thousands of years. The warming we've triggered has already reached very nearly the same spot in only a couple hundred years and is on track to far surpass it as time goes on. There's a lag time of a couple decades between when Co2 goes up into the atmosphere and then has its effects felt in terms of global warming. Think of it this way. Someone has shot themselves with a gun and the bullet is traveling towards their head. For a brief amount of seconds they're still alive, but only because the bullet hasn't reach them yet. In our case, we currently have a tank shell traveling towards our heads, since the high rate of warming is just about as devastating as that on a planetary level by comparison.

The only ways I can see that this could happen are an all-out nuclear war or an enormous asteroid, two scenarios I don't find very likely.

You vastly underestimate the risk of nuclear war. It could still very easily happen and, in fact, it can be argued that the possibility for it happening has never been higher, at least since the cold war. The USA still has a very active nuclear arsenal and major generals are still itchy to put them to use. Every major treaty written since the 90s meant to reduce and limit the risk of nuclear war has been defanged and trampled all over by the USA. As climate chaos becomes ever more of a destabilizing factor, its effects on available space/resources will also have a profound effect on geopolitics.

Bangladesh, for instance, is a nation of 163 million people and that entire country is set to sink beneath waves within the coming years. Remember that the Syrian civil war with just 500,000 to a 1,000,000 refugees trying to flee into Europe had nearly every country therein pointing in an extremely right wing direction. With the coming chaos from climate change, the election of utter mad men to positions of power becomes guaranteed. The kind who would make Trump look like a choir boy by comparison. In the USA, the president has the sole authority to execute a nuclear war if he wishes it. There's a guy who follows him around with the "football", a suitcase with all the nuclear codes in it. At any moment, whoever occupies the presidency could simply launch a strike just like that. No oversight, no confirmation from other sectors of the government, no extra channels required whatsoever.

Also keep in mind that the USA is saber rattling nuclear war with Russia constantly and would still like nothing more than to wipe it off the face of the planet. Through the USA's proxy organization NATO, they've surrounded Russia with missile sites designed to "decapitate" them, thus preventing them from striking back after the USA proceeds to hit them first. There are those insane enough, high within the chain of command of the US armed forces that believe that this is a "winning" strategy and are desperate to try it out.

In addition, the USA and Russia aren't the only ones with nuclear weapons. Another high likelihood of nuclear conflict exists between India and Pakistan. There's a long history of bad blood between the two and it's safe to say that both nations hate each other with a passion that even eclipses the animosity that exists between the USA and Russia. As climate change accelerates, one of the main sources of fresh water in the region, the Indus river, will slow to a trickle. When it comes to fighting over water rights, don't think that use of nuclear weapons will be off the table because, on the contrary, they most certainly will be on the table.

Another possible culprit for nuclear armageddon could be Saudi Arabia, who are looking to get their mitts on nuclear weapons. They're already well known for supporting fanatical jihadists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. You couldn't put it past to them to someday just accidentally "lose" one of their nuclear devices, only for it to end up in the hands of violent terrorists who'd use it to purge a target of their choosing with nuclear fire. This might not lead to a nuclear war per se, but it would still be a devastating blow that would cripple our civilization, which is already in its final death throes already.

And below is a recent video which comments on the fact that nuclear war is still a dire concern that those in the military view as a "very real possibility".

 

[Sensei]

An average global temperature rise of just 3 degrees celcius will render this planet uninhabitable. As it stands, it's likely will see a rise of either 4 or 5, or perhaps higher. 350 ppm Co2 is considered the absolute safe upper limit for the planetary life support systems which our species relies on utterly to survive. At this juncture, we've already passed 400 ppm and, in enough time, it seems likely we'll be passing 500 ppm, which is about as overkill as it gets for wiping out nearly all life on earth. As an example of what I mean, the Permian-Triassic extinction event (otherwise known as the "Great Dying') is what we're currently experiencing and are in the somewhat early stages of. That extinction event was also set off by a runaway greenhouse effect and, in a final total of the victims, it killed nearly 99% of all life that existed at the time.

Here's the thing though that really ensures our total eradication, and the eradication of nearly all other life. That warming during the PTE took place over thousands of years. The warming we've triggered has already reached very nearly the same spot in only a couple hundred years and is on track to far surpass it as time goes on. There's a lag time of a couple decades between when Co2 goes up into the atmosphere and then has its effects felt in terms of global warming. Think of it this way. Someone has shot themselves with a gun and the bullet is traveling towards their head. For a brief amount of seconds they're still alive, but only because the bullet hasn't reach them yet. In our case, we currently have a tank shell traveling towards our heads, since the high rate of warming is just about as devastating as that on a planetary level by comparison.

Well researched and well put! I'm not sure I agree, though. Far from all scientists are of the opinion that 500 ppm will eradicate all life on earth. Many if not most scientists seem to be of the opinion that it "only" will lead to extreme weather, sea level rise, food shortage, and mass migration. I think that climate change at the current rate will decimate mankind dramatically, but I wonder if it in itself really will mean the end of mankind. Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know because we'll be dead by then anyway, no matter if we die of old age or by our own hand.

You vastly underestimate the risk of nuclear war. It could still very easily happen and, in fact, it can be argued that the possibility for it happening has never been higher, at least since the cold war. The USA still has a very active nuclear arsenal and major generals are still itchy to put them to use. Every major treaty written since the 90s meant to reduce and limit the risk of nuclear war has been defanged and trampled all over by the USA. As climate chaos becomes ever more of a destabilizing factor, its effects on available space/resources will also have a profound effect on geopolitics.

Bangladesh, for instance, is a nation of 163 million people and that entire country is set to sink beneath waves within the coming years. Remember that the Syrian civil war with just 500,000 to a 1,000,000 refugees trying to flee into Europe had nearly every country therein pointing in an extremely right wing direction. With the coming chaos from climate change, the election of utter mad men to positions of power becomes guaranteed. The kind who would make Trump look like a choir boy by comparison. In the USA, the president has the sole authority to execute a nuclear war if he wishes it. There's a guy who follows him around with the "football", a suitcase with all the nuclear codes in it. At any moment, whoever occupies the presidency could simply launch a strike just like that. No oversight, no confirmation from other sectors of the government, no extra channels required whatsoever.

Also keep in mind that the USA is saber rattling nuclear war with Russia constantly and would still like nothing more than to wipe it off the face of the planet. Through the USA's proxy organization NATO, they've surrounded Russia with missile sites designed to "decapitate" them, thus preventing them from striking back after the USA proceeds to hit them first. There are those insane enough in the chain of command of the US armed forces that believe that this is a "winning" strategy and are desperate to try it out.

In addition, the USA and Russia aren't the only ones with nuclear weapons. Another high likelihood of nuclear conflict exists between India and Pakistan. There's a long history of bad blood between the two and it's safe to say that both nations hate each other with a passion that even eclipses the animosity that exists between the USA and Russia. As climate change accelerates, one of the main sources of fresh water in the region, the Indus river, will slow to a trickle. When it comes to fighting over water rights, don't think that use of nuclear weapons will be off the table because, on the contrary, they most certainly will be on the table.

Another possible culprit for nuclear armageddon could be Saudi Arabia, who are looking to get their mitts on nuclear weapons. They're already well known for supporting fanatical jihadists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. You couldn't put it pass to them to someday just accidentally "lose" one of their nuclear devices, only for it to end up in the hands of violent terrorists who'd use it to purge a target of their choosing with nuclear fire. This might not lead to a nuclear war per se, but it would still be a devastating blow that would cripple our civilization, which is already in its final death throes already.

And below is a recent video which comments on the fact that nuclear war is still a dire concern that those in the military view as a "very real possibility".

I'd say the risk of a limited nuclear war is quite high. It could definitely happen in the Middle-East, on the Indian subcontinent, or in East Asia. That would be serious in itself. I've seen estimates which claim that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could be enough to trigger a nuclear winter. I don't think an all-out nuclear war between the USA and Russia is likely, though. I think that for this to happen there would have to be outright lunatics in the White House and Kreml. Even madmen like Trump and Putin seem to realize that it would mean the end of mankind. I'm not saying that it can't happen, just that it's not very likely. Now when I think about it, there's another way this could happen: an accidental launch or other kind of malfunction could potentially result in a massive exchange of nuclear warheads.

 

[Imaginos]

Far from all scientists are of the opinion that 500 ppm will eradicate all life on earth. Many if not most scientists seem to be of the opinion that it "only" will lead to extreme weather, sea level rise, food shortage, and mass migration.

The large majority of those scientists you refer to also have careers and positions which they wish to protect. Being too "alarmist" would ential running a high risk of losing their tenure and means of employment. Not to mention that it's a general rule for scientists, especially climate scientists, to be as conservative in their findings/predictions as possible, even when the reality is poised to be much, much worse.

I think that climate change at the current rate will decimate mankind dramatically, but I wonder if it in itself really will mean the end of mankind.

Climate change alone would probably be enough to wipe out mankind; yes. You have to realize that these are changes which will persist for hundreds of thousands of years. Magnitudes longer than human civilization has been around for, or even just homo sapiens in general. Chaos of the climate this severe brings with it many other factors. Desertification, ocean acidification, the elimination of all biodiversity on the planet, the likely extinction of phytoplankton and the emergence of massive green/purple hydrogen sulfide producing algae blooms within ocean dead zones. The list goes on and on. Human extinction within the near-term is guaranteed, that much is certain, it's only a question of when. With the additional element of nuclear war being a near certainty as things continue to worsen, I personally don't believe any humans will remain on the planet by the end of this century. Maybe you'll have a few squatting in bunkers somewhere, but they'll be the unlucky ones. Bunker life is not sustainable long term and they'll in all likelihood die a very slow and agonizing death. Cannibalism and mass insanity will be the fate of those trapped within bunkers, I'd wager.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know because we'll be dead by then anyway, no matter if we die of old age or by our own hand.

Agreed. However, it seems likely that unless one is of an advanced age or terminally ill, we will all live to see the total collapse of industrial civilization and organized human society. In the prelude to this, I find it next to impossible to imagine that nuclear weapons won't be used by someone. Whether just out of pure desperation, or to ruthlessly spite one another. Some nations with nuclear arsenals will go quietly, but not all of them. Certainly not the USA, that much seems clear.

I'd say the risk of a limited nuclear war is quite high.

You know, a limited nuclear war almost seems like a contradiction in terms. Even the most limited of nuclear exchanges will have profound and devastating effects on the entire planet. It's also not beyond the realm of the possible that other world powers could get roped into what is otherwise a localized conflict. If India and Pakistan start duking it out with their nuclear arsenal, then there's also a risk that larger nations (such as the USA, China, or Russia) would get involved as well, pitting themselves one against the other depending on who they were allied with. Never assume there aren't people stupid/crazy enough in high position of influence to do so, because there are.

I've seen estimates which claim that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could be enough to trigger a nuclear winter.

Yes, that is correct. Funnily enough, this might stem global warming for a time, but nuclear winter would be equally lethal for both our species and the rest of life on this planet to contend with. Whether you're run over by a tank or run over by a semi-truck, both will mean your immediate death.

I don't think an all-out nuclear war between the USA and Russia is likely, though. I think that for this to happen there would have to be outright lunatics in the White House and Kreml.

But there are outright lunatics in those places. Hilary Clinton wanted to establish a "no fly zone" over Syria, which would've guaranteed a major conflict with Russia that could've easily led to nuclear weapons being deployed. 4 years of Neo-Mccarthyism trying to cover up for her embarrassing loss against Trump has also increased tensions massively between the USA and Russia. At the same time, you have those on the right who want to nuke China on account of the threat they pose to US superiority and its attempts at full spectrum dominance across the globe. Trump might not have been crazy enough to push the big red button, but Mike Pence sure as hell might have. And there are tons of batshit crazy, christian fascist motherfuckers like him in Washington that believe Jesus is about to rapture them up into heaven when the nuclear fire comes to kill all the gays and the evil jews. I can't speak for Russia, but I'm sure they must have their own fair share of lunatic fringe nut jobs that want to bust out the nukes, but I'd say the USA takes the cake in that regard.

Even madmen like Trump and Putin seem to realize that it would mean the end of mankind.

Yes, but only because they're sleazy business men. They're too ideologically vacant to possess the kind of unique craziness that would lead to someone launching nukes. Again, someone like Mike Pence is fanatical enough in his own beliefs that he could very easily justify it to himself to launch the nukes in a bid to "save America". Joe Biden, to a much lesser degree than Pence, is just as capable of this kind of suicidal thinking and, I'd argue, perhaps even moreso than Trump. When it came to Trump, he was all just hot air and putting on a big show for his constituency. Even neoliberal democrats like Clinton and Biden seem to have more of an ideological bent towards destroying the "corrupting" influence of Russia, such to the point where you really couldn't put it past them to potentially launch a first strike against them as they come to more fervently believe their own propagandic bullshit.

Now when I think about it, there's another way this could happen: an accidental launch or other kind of malfunction could potentially result in a massive exchange of nuclear warheads.

Yes, this also carries a very high possibility of happening. The US only just finished updating the nuclear missile launch control system from 5 1/2 floppy disks a few years ago, and and the rest of the original internal systems remain. It's nothing short of a miracle that a glitch hasn't already killed us yet.

Never forget, that a food deliver guy was able to walk into one of the bunkers responsible for nuclear missile control because the blast doors were broken and propped open. Officers have regularly been found asleep at their posts with the doors open and otherwise derelict in their duties and those who wish to report such violations are pressured to keep their mouths shut, leading to an ever higher chance of things going horribly wrong somehow.

Story for those interested: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-air-force-nuclear-missiles-blast-door

 

[Sensei]

The large majority of those scientists you refer to also have careers and positions which they wish to protect. Being too "alarmist" would ential running a high risk of losing their tenure and means of employment. Not to mention that it's a general rule for scientists, especially climate scientists, to be as conservative in their findings/predictions as possible, even when the reality is poised to be much, much worse.

That's a possibility. I think that might be the case with the weakening magnetosphere, an in my opinion more likely bane of mankind. Considering how serious the possible ramifications are, there's very little information available. Hypothetically, a gigantic asteroid might be coming our way, but kept under wraps to not cause panic.

Climate change alone would probably be enough to wipe out mankind; yes. You have to realize that these are changes will persist for hundreds of thousands of years. Magnitudes longer than human civilization has been around for, or even just homo sapiens in general. Chaos of the climate this severe brings with it many other factors. Desertification, ocean acidification, the elimination of all biodiversity on the planet, the likely extinction of phytoplankton and the emergence of massive green/purple hydrogen sulfide producing algae blooms within ocean dead zones. The list goes on and on. Human extinction within the near-term is guaranteed, that much is certain, it's only a question of when. With the additional element of nuclear war being a near certainty as things continue to worsen, I personally don't believe any humans will remain on the planet by the end of this century. Maybe you'll have a few squatting in bunkers somewhere, but they'll be the unlucky ones. Bunker life is not sustainable long term and they'll in all likelihood die a very slow and agonizing death. Cannibalism and mass insanity will be the fate of those trapped within bunkers, I'd wager.

Sounds reasonable. The process is after all irreversible and in the long run it will most likely make earth unhabitable, at least for mankind. I doubt that it will make mankind go extinct this century, though.

Agreed. However, it seems likely that unless one is of an advanced age or terminally ill, we will live to see the total collapse of industrial civilization and organized human society.

I find that unlikely, Rising sea leveles, desertification, famine, mass migration and what have you, yes, but the collapse of civilization, no.

In the prelude to this, I find it next to impossible to imagine that nuclear weapons won't be used by someone. Whether out of pure desperation, or to ruthlessly spite one another. Some nations with nuclear arsenals will go quietly, but not all of them. Certainly not the USA, that much seems clear.

As I hopefully already have made clear, I find that unlikely, albeit not impossible.

You know, a limited nuclear war almost seems like a contradiction in terms. Even the most limited of nuclear exchanges will have profound and devastating effects on the entire planet. It's also not beyond the realm of the possible that other world powers could get roped into what is otherwise a localized conflict. If India and Pakistan start duking it out with their nuclear arsenal, then there's also a risk that larger nations (such as the USA, China, or Russia) would get involved as well, pitting themselves one against the other depending on who they were allied with. Never assume there aren't people stupid/crazy enough to do so, because there are.

A domino effect is certainly possible, but I'd say that depends on which nations are involved and what allies they have. I doubt that the USA or Russia would intervene in a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, but they could very well intervene in a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran; I'm quite sure Iran will acquire nuclear weapons within a decade, possibly two.

Yes, that is correct. Funnily enough, this might stem global warming for a time, but nuclear winter would be equally lethal for both our species and the rest of life on this planet to contend with. Whether you're run over by a tank or run over by a semi-truck, both will mean your immediate death.

I don't think a nuclear winter following a limited nuclear war would mean the end of mankind either. I'm convinced that it would lead to wide-spread famine and mass migration, though. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that a number of nations actually could collapse.

But there are outright lunatics in those places. Hilary Clinton wanted to establish a "no fly zone" over Syria, which would've guaranteed a major conflict with Russia that could've easily led to nuclear weapons being deployed. 4 years of Neo-Mccarthyism trying to cover up for her embarrassing loss against Trump has also increased tensions massively between the USA and Russia. At the same time, you have those on the right who want to nuke China on account of the threat they pose to US superiority and full spectrum dominance across the globe. Trump might not have been crazy enough to push the big red button, but Mike Pence sure as hell might have. And there are tons of batshit crazy, christian fascist motherfuckers like him in Washington that believe Jesus is about to rapture them up into heaven when the nuclear fire comes to kill all the gays and evil jews. I can't speak for Russia, but I'm sure they must have their own fair share of lunatic fringe nut jobs that want to bust out the nukes, but I'd say the USA takes the cake in that regard.

I wouldn't label them as outright lunatics, because then we would already have been dead. Now when I think about it, there's another option worth consideration: a president governing while under the influence. It might sound far-fetched, but we only have to look at Richard Nixon and Boris Jeltsin.

Yes, but only because they're sleazy business men. They're too ideologically vacant to possess the kind of unique craziness that would lead to someone launching nukes. Again, someone like Mike Pence is fanatical enough in his own beliefs that he could very easily justify it to himself to launch the nukes in a bid to "save America". Joe Biden, to a much lesser degree than Pence, is just as capable of this kind of suicidal thinking and, I'd argue, perhaps even moreso than Trump. When it came to Trump, he was all just hot air and putting on a big show for his constituency. Even neoliberal democrats like Clinton and Biden seem to have more of an ideological bent towards destroying the "corrupting" influence of Russia, such to the point where you really couldn't put it past them to potentially launch a first strike against them as they come to more fervently believe their own propagandic bullshit.

Admittedly, neoliberals are just as bad warmongers as conservatives. I believe it's a quite big step from bombing Third World countries to launching a whole arsenal of nuclear weapons, though. I'd be more worried about Israel and North Korea.

Yes, this also carries a very high possibility of happening. The US only just finished updating the nuclear missile launch control system from 5 1/2 floppy disks a few years ago, and and the rest of the original internal systems remain. It's nothing short of a miracle that a glitch hasn't already killed us yet.

Never forget, that a food deliver guy was able to walk into one of the bunkers responsible for nuclear missile control because the blast doors were broken and propped open. Officers have regularly been found asleep at their posts with the doors open and otherwise derelict in their duties and those who wish to report such violations are pressured to keep their mouths shut, leading to an ever higher chance of things going horribly wrong somehow.

Story for those interested: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/us-air-force-nuclear-missiles-blast-door

I knew that the US arsenal is in a bad state, but I didn't think it was that bad. One can only imagine what the situation must be like in Russia.

 

[Manaaja]

Overpopulation to me is having an area where more than 10 people live in a square kilometer. Or if that's too harsh, to have any country with more than a million inhabitants. And if even that is too harsh, to have more than a billion people per one blue ball. So long as there are enough single house homes (I don't know the exact word in English) for people so that no one lives in an apartment, so long there's no overpopulation.

 

[Imaginos]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm aware of your position on the matter and respect it, but tipping points have been crossed which have already spelled the end of our time on this planet. Feed back loops will ensure this process continues, even in the absence of industrial civilization. Funnily enough, if industrial activity were to disappear tomorrow, global temperatures would dramatically increase, not decrease, on account of factors such as global dimming. It does no good to simply ignore these feedback loops or to downplay the catastrophic effects of matters such as ocean acidification, which, again, amount to just one more lethally compounding factor in this rolling omnicide we've set into motion. For what it's worth, I think it's a myth that humans are in any as clever or resilient as we like to think we are. Our genus has only been around for a couple million years, homo sapiens only for a couple hundred thousand. Big whoop. Nautiloids have been around for hundreds of millions of years. If there's anything likely to survive all this it's them; not us. A minor blip like the Toba eruption almost wiped us out, so I don't value our chances when it comes to surviving a REAL extinction event like the one we're currently experiencing.

On top of that, civilization is also MUCH more fragile than the seemingly imposing and invulnerable front it manages to maintain, even in the face of its own oncoming death/collapse. Without a functioning biosphere to provide the necessary conditions for its continued existence, industrial civilization will fall apart like a flimsy deck of cards. Civilization does not exist in a special bubble that makes it immune to the many factors which could very easily topple it over in the coming years, and the same applies to humanity itself. Modern civilization, if we mark its start from the 1950s onwards, has just barely been around for a single human lifetime. This is hardly grounds to think of it as a timeless and robust entity, when it's precisely because of its extreme complexity, that makes it that much more susceptible to collapse. Joseph Tainter and his book "Collapse of Complex Societies" does an airtight job of showing how this is the case.

Considering how serious the possible ramifications are, there's very little information available. Hypothetically, a gigantic asteroid might be coming our way, but kept under wraps to not cause panic.

It seems odd that you put more stock into matters like the magnetosphere weakening or a giant asteroid suddenly smacking into us, which are things that otherwise have no current bearing on our existence at the moment, versus now well documented, detailed and dire warnings of ultra chaotic shifts in our climate which could very easily spell the end of our species, in a relatively quickly manner. And that, regardless of matters of when our extinction will take place, we're already feeling the effects of this massively dislocating climate impact right this minute. To be honest, one could easily look at climate chaos as a sort of proverbial asteroid. Just one that hasn't been evenly distributed in its destructive power yet. And, again, even when you look at past extinction events, the K2 asteroid impact pales in comparison to the PTE, which itself was the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, and that just goes to show which one should worry us more.

Tim Garett is a professional climate scientist and one of the few of those out there not afraid to relay to the public how truly dire the situation is. I just think the below Twiiter comment from him is quite pertinent here.

Paul Beckwith is another such academic climate scientist that deserves attention. The below video on feedback loops also applies here as a good explanation of our predicament.

 

[kane]

Overpopulation is relative. You can have more people living at a lower quality of life, or fewer people consuming more resources. At the standards of living we aspire to, overpopulation is already a problem - there isn't enough planet for all of us to live this well. It's just a question of how much worse it gets. It's also region specific - we aren't a united species. If the plan is to have the excess from the purple/red areas move to the blue areas without massive social strife, then we have a problem.

Bottom line, the 'blue north' needs to consume less. And Africans/Afghanis/other deprived regions need better access to contraception (and the female emancipation required to use it).

 

[aneurysm]

Yes, but it's also irrelevant on account of the fact that omnicide is now in full swing. The numbers are in and it's game over for our species. It's a remarkably safe bet to make that there will be zero humans left standing before the end of this century arrives. I guess extinction is one way to solve the dilemma of overpopulation. No population; no problem.

I think you're hugely underestimating our collective SI

also, overpopulation isn't really an issue. The issue is that we are bad at allocating ressources and most of our food goes to waste. We also destroy nature. Those are the real issues.

It's always the poorer people who breed the most am because it's the poorer people who are the most reasonable (less selfish about ressources) and history rewards they descendant while richer people tend to go extinct or stop breeding for one reason or another. The world belongs to the children of the poor. Their patience with all the bullshit always ends up being rewarded. It's poorly worded but you get me.

 

[Imaginos]

I think you're hugely underestimating our collective SI

SI? As in survival instinct? Well, truth be told, I actually think we're more guilty of a different SI. As in, suicidal instinct. I mean, we must be unconsciously suicidal for having done the things we've done and to have put ourselves in the position we happen to be in. Ultimately though, people are shortsighted and greedy. None of the changes that could've saved us were made because people were too slow and reluctant to change. As a consequence of that, we passively accepted the suicide of our own species, while telling ourselves that someone would think of something and that everything would be okay. People are not techno wizards. We can't conjure up fantasy technology at the last moment to save our own hides, just as much as how someone who didn't study for a test can't cram all the material within their heads in a spans of only 5 minutes before needing to take it. In our situation however, the test already happened the day before and we slept through it, which means even that last minute opportunity has passed us. I'd say too many people overestimate the ingenuity of our species. We're clever, but only to a point. You can't clever yourself out of a dead planet. Plus, it's fair to say that a large amount of the public are about as dull and misinformed as it gets, which doesn't bode well for the survival of our species. George Carlin said it best, "The public sucks. Fuck hope".

 

[Mentalmick]

Well this is a cheery fucking thread. God won't let any of this happen so we're all going to be fine. Except for my enemies.

 

[TheSomebody]

Interesting observation, I enjoyed reading the comments here.

We are fragile, any change has drastic effects on society. Just see what a virus was able to do...
More serious changes like climate change and species extinction would be a terror.
I think that in 100 years humanity will be in extremely deplorable conditions, unless technology saves us somehow.

I disagree that the population is going to back down as well. Many statistics say the opposite.

some studies say that the population will retreat in quantity because women will assume higher positions in the job market. Every time I see high career people with children i come to conclusion these studies are just bs. No matter how financially women and men advance, they will always want to give birth to more and more children. High-career is useless in combating Natality, as long as society has this pro-birth mentality. Overpopulation is a real problem in the future and I believe that humanity will destroy itself because of it.

 

[Amumu]

Interesting observation, I enjoyed reading the comments here.

We are fragile, any change has drastic effects on society. Just see what a virus was able to do...
More serious changes like climate change and species extinction would be a terror.
I think that in 100 years humanity will be in extremely deplorable conditions, unless technology saves us somehow.

I disagree that the population is going to back down as well. Many statistics say the opposite.

some studies say that the population will retreat in quantity because women will assume higher positions in the job market. Every time I see high career people with children i come to conclusion these studies are just bs. No matter how financially women and men advance, they will always want to give birth to more and more children. High-career is useless in combating Natality, as long as society has this pro-birth mentality. Overpopulation is a real problem in the future and I believe that humanity will destroy itself because of it.

Well, the "low prospect" of the UN predicts a peak at 9 billion and then a decrease after 2050-2060...
Some studies even predict a peak at 8 billion and a decrease at 6 billion in 2100.
Bangladesh had a fertility rate of 6 in 1990; nowadays it's 2.

Fertility rate has decreased far far quicker than we thought.
It is likely that it will converge towards the Korean model, that is 1 imo.
I'm not a native speaker but I searched for an American article

World's population likely to shrink after 50 years | CNN

The world's population is likely to peak at 9.7 billion in 2064, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by the end of the century, as women get better access to education and contraception, a new study has found.

www.cnn.com

Bottom line, the 'blue north' needs to consume less.

That's not going to happen. We're all using computers and the Internet just right now.

some studies say that the population will retreat in quantity because women will assume higher positions in the job market. Every time I see high career people with children i come to conclusion these studies are just bs. No matter how financially women and men advance, they will always want to give birth to more and more children.

I don't see any evidence for what you're saying.
Global fertility rate was 2,5 in 2010, it's 2,3 in 2020, while global extreme poverty was drastically reduced and global wealth increased.

Interesting observation, I enjoyed reading the comments here.

Thanks, I didn't expect such interest from people lol

 

[Sensei]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I'm aware of your position on the matter and respect it, but tipping points have been crossed which have already spelled the end of our time on this planet. Feed back loops will ensure this process continues, even in the absence of industrial civilization. Funnily enough, if industrial activity were to disappear tomorrow, global temperatures would dramatically increase, not decrease, on account of factors such as global dimming. It does no good to simply ignore these feedback loops or to downplay the catastrophic effects of matters such as ocean acidification, which, again, amount to just one more lethally compounding factor in this rolling omnicide we've set into motion. For what it's worth, I think it's a myth that humans are in any as clever or resilient as we like to think we are. Our genus has only been around for a couple million years, homo sapiens only for a couple hundred thousand. Big whoop. Nautiloids have been around for hundreds of millions of years. If there's anything likely to survive all this it's them; not us. A minor blip like the Toba eruption almost wiped us out, so I don't value our chances when it comes to surviving a REAL extinction event like the one we're currently experiencing.

On top of that, civilization is also MUCH more fragile than the seemingly imposing and invulnerable front it manages to maintain, even in the face of its own oncoming death/collapse. Without a functioning biosphere to provide the necessary conditions for its continued existence, industrial civilization will fall apart like a flimsy deck of cards. Civilization does not exist in a special bubble that makes it immune to the many factors which could very easily topple it over in the coming years, and the same applies to humanity itself. Modern civilization, if we mark its start from the 1950s onwards, has just barely been around for a single human lifetime. This is hardly grounds to think of it as a timeless and robust entity, when it's precisely because of its extreme complexity, that makes it that much more susceptible to collapse. Joseph Tainter and his book "Collapse of Complex Societies" does an airtight job of showing how this is the case.

Is this a response to me or am I just confused as always?

It seems odd that you put more stock into matters like the magnetosphere weakening or a giant asteroid suddenly smacking into us, which are things that otherwise have no current bearing on our existence at the moment, versus now well documented, detailed and dire warnings of ultra chaotic shifts in our climate which could very easily spell the end of our species, in a relatively quickly manner. And that, regardless of matters of when our extinction will take place, we're already feeling the effects of this massively dislocating climate impact right this minute. To be honest, one could easily look at climate chaos as a sort of proverbial asteroid. Just one that hasn't been evenly distributed in its destructive power yet. And, again, even when you look at past extinction events, the K2 asteroid impact pales in comparison to the PTE, which itself was the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, and that just goes to show which one should worry us more.

The weakening of the magnetosphere is accelerating and the heliosphere is weakening too. It has turned dangerous comparatively fast in the past so it can happen again. Since a weakening of the magnetosphere may have been the reason the Neanderthal species went extinct, I'd say that it's a threat that should be taken seriously. As for a gigantic asteroid, it was just a hypothetical scenario, nothing else. Again, I don't dispute that the runaway climate change very well may mean the end of mankind, but I doubt that it will happen within 80 years. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[kane]

That's not going to happen. We're all using computers and the Internet just right now.

You're probably right. But the reality remains - if everyone on the planet were to adopt our consumption patterns, we hit a wall pretty fast. The idea that you could have every adult in the world running their own car is laughable, especially if they were electric (cobalt supplies for the batteries alone make it unfeasible.)

 

[Endeavour]

I think one of the big issues is that what has allowed our population to swell from 1.5 billion in 1918 (took tens of thousands of years to get to that number) to almost 8 billion today (only 100 years) is oil.

Cheap and portable energy that is required to produce an abundance of cheap food. And everything else.

When oil is no longer cheap thats the end of plentiful food, it's used to make fertiliser, plant it, harvest it, process it and ship it.

I suspect that is why gates, bezos etc are buying up agricultural land like there's no tomorrow, and why gates is heavily into gm crops.

No food, no people. Well, a lot less of them.

 

[Imaginos]

You're probably right. But the reality remains - if everyone on the planet were to adopt our consumption patterns, we hit a wall pretty fast. The idea that you could have every adult in the world running their own car is laughable, especially if they were electric (cobalt supplies for the batteries alone make it unfeasible.)

Well said. India and China are still trying to adopt first world lifestyles when this is simply impossible at this point. They've promised their populations first world lifestyles that simply can't be delivered on at a mass scale. As you pointed out, the world's precious mineral deposits would be gone before you could even blink an eye, assuming anyone was ever insane enough to try and supply that kind of insane demand. It's hardly very sustainable even for those countries that do enjoy these luxuries, such as the USA, the UK, or any other first world nation.

The primary madness of our society is its unexamined mandate that it can grow infinitely on what is otherwise a very finite planet. Of course, it's certainly not fair that India and China, which historically have been frequently oppressed and exploited, are now unable to enjoy a level of modernization that other countries have reaped the benefits of for decades, once again directly at China and India's expense in large part. However, their attempts to "catch up" will only accelerate our demise.

If you ask me, it's a dual problem. People need to consume far less and our economies need to shift from a growth centric mindset, to one focused on shrinking our bloated size down as much and as efficiently as possible. It's also true that people in developing nations are breeding too much and that this is arguably just as big an issue that needs tackling as overconsumption. If global resources could be managed properly then these developing nations could be given what they needed to educate their populations properly, supply as many contraceptives as needed, and provide a new decent level of living. All these actions would dramatically slow the birthrate. If you ask me though, there should be a global restriction on population. Our numbers should be kept at a maximum of 500,000,000 people, spread evenly across the planet. Anything more than that is only a detriment to our survival, not a benefit.

Japan is literally what every nation should be striving to be at this point. Its population is in steep decline and instead of this being seen for what it is, that being the way forward for our society, it's painted as this horrible nightmare where not enough new consumers/tax payers are being created to keep suicidal growth going. Japan should be seizing this opportunity to de-escalate the focus on growth, but it instead just wants everyone to breed like rabbits so the growth that's killing all of us can be maintained. If people and nations keep doing the exact opposite of what it is they should do to maintain stability, then I don't see how those nations, or our global society, will be able to weather the challenges that surround us, not to mention those still to come.

Many stories these days complain about how younger people the world over are not procreating as prodigiously as they should for the economy to maintain the growth rate. Even CBS was recently hyperventilating over this. Governments are trying to think about new ways to incentivize breeding, when they should be doing everything they can to encourage the opposite, and instead incentivize those who are single, or have vasectomies. The fact that the former is all that matters is one big reason why we're doomed.

When oil is no longer cheap thats the end of plentiful food, it's used to make fertiliser, plant it, harvest it, process it and ship it.

Yes, this is how it's going down. Rationing by price. More and more people, whether in first world nations or elsewhere, won't be able to afford even the most basic needs, as prices skyrocket beyond the ability for the majority to pay for them. If people protest they'll either be placated by mass media/politicians, or shot in the eye with a rubber bullet by militarized police forces. If any protests/revolutions are successful, they'll undoubtedly be right wing in origin, leading to nakedly fascist governments which will only compound our demise even further.

There would actually have been a major food crisis far sooner than now, if it hadn't been for stuff like the Green Revolution taking place back in the 50s and 60s. Thanks to the novel application of oil/fossil fuels in the forms of new and more effective chemical fertilizers being invented, crop yields were basically quadrupled. Of course, this led to an even bigger explosion of population to such a point where we've now ended up back where we started, except now there's ten times as many more hungry mouths out there to feed. This is the problem with new agriculture developments. It simply kicks the can further down the road, until the problem comes back a hundred times as fiercely as it once was. Efficient and careful management of global resources and food production is what is required. Otherwise, people will breed like shit covered rats on a sinking ship. At least in places where resources are not as widely available to make up for their poor living standards and lack of resources, since children are likely to die young or can otherwise be exploited as free labor.

And here's the best video there is on describing the horror of overpopulation. Like Asimov so definitively stated, not even the barest thread of decency or freedom can survive overpopulation. This is why lower birthrates and abortions should be celebrated and rewarded, instead of being seen as if they're a problem. Thank goodness this rigged economy is at least making people think twice about spewing out their crotch spawn and creating another pack of human gargoyles to pollute the world with. And to then somehow expect this world of ours to bear the weight of it, at the rest of everyone else's expense.

 

[kane]

Japan is literally what every nation should be striving to be at this point. Its population is in steep decline and instead of this being seen for what it is, that being the way forward for our society, it's painted as this horrible nightmare

I suppose aging populations come with their own issues. You have to have a certain number of working age people to support those who are retired. Technological development might go some way to filling the gap, but it can be pretty bleak if you're elderly and you have no younger relatives to care for you. People also want to feel a link to future generations and that their families will continue - most of the elderly want grandchildren. A society where everyone is old and isolated is not a happy one.

The alternative is to import younger people from poorer nations to fill the gaps in the workforce. But they then typically start to consume at local levels, so it doesn't really help with that. And the older natives often don't identify the newcomers as 'one of us', so social tensions increase.

 

[Endeavour]

There won't be many jobs before long. Is it Amazon that have opened up th store with no staff. You go in pick up what you want, zap it with your phone, and walk out, and it takes payment through your phone. They'll probably just put RFID chips on all of the products so you don't even have to scan them. Walk in, pick up your stuff, and walk out.

 

[Endeavour]

People are redundant and unnecessary in this new technocracy, apart from their necessity to give their money to the corporations, and a few to do the menial tasks.

If they come up with a new plan where they don't need your money because they have a new buddy-buddy system for themselves, then people are totally redundant - they are then useless consumers who are doing nothing more than wasting precious resources.

Kind of like cockroaches.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

People are redundant and unnecessary in this new technocracy, apart from their necessity to give their money to the corporations, and a few to do the menial tasks.

If they come up with a new plan where they don't need your money because they have a new buddy-buddy system for themselves, then people are totally redundant - they are then useless consumers who are doing nothing more than wasting precious resources.

Kind of like cockroaches.

The future sounds so exciting, super thankful for being born!

 

[Endeavour]

The future sounds so exciting, super thankful for being born!

Well, it depends on who you are I suppose, it could be Grrreeeeaaaat, or it could be Shhhiiiittttt!

For Bill & co it'll be great, the rest of us not so much

I really get worried when I see people I admire like Elon Musk with his neuralink company, where they are already implanting chips into peoples brains so they can interface with computers and machines.

An interviewer said to him - so basically you're turning people into cyborgs then, and he was kind of like. Well, yeah I suppose, it's (in essence) a brave new world.

The 4th Industrial revolution will (according to Schwab) involve not just algorithms and AI and smart cities, but the fusuion of biology, technology and - we're the cyborgs LoLoL.

On a side note, I think in one of Angelina Joies first movies she was a cyborg. I'd interface with her any day.

So there is an upside to everything.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

Well, it depends on who you are I suppose, it could be Grrreeeeaaaat, or it could be Shhhiiiittttt!

For Bill & co it'll be great, the rest of us not so much

I really get worried when I see people I admire like Elon Musk with his neuralink company, where they are already implanting chips into peoples brains so they can interface with computers and machines.

An interviewer said to him - so basically you're turning people into cyborgs then, and he was kind of like. Well, yeah I suppose, it's (in essence) a brave new world.

The 4th Industrial revolution will (according to Schwab) involve not just algorithms and AI and smart cities, but the fusuion of biology, technology and - we're the cyborgs LoLoL.

 

[Imaginos]

I suppose aging populations come with their own issues. You have to have a certain number of working age people to support those who are retired. Technological development might go some way to filling the gap, but it can be pretty bleak if you're elderly and you have no younger relatives to care for you. People also want to feel a link to future generations and that their families will continue - most of the elderly want grandchildren. A society where everyone is old and isolated is not a happy one.

This is an unfortunate byproduct of growth based economics. It's a ponzi scheme where the more people there are, the more are needed in the future to keep the whole thing going. If there's a contraction in this process, then you suddenly run into problems like the kind you touched on such as a sagging GDP, or a greying population where the old start to vastly outnumber the young. Automation is indeed one such tool that can help to smooth over these sorts of things, but the dislocations from a nation meeting the hard limits to growth can never be alleviated entirely. One thing is for sure, the solution to this is not to simply pile on more people in the form of trying to encourage rampant reproduction. Japan has for many years now been making it a priority of theirs to do everything it can do to try and incentivize baby making and, this to me, is simply pure madness.

Of course, when it comes to the core problems informing this trend, neither Japan, nor any other nation, are doing what is really required to address it. Matters such as ungainful employment, lack of opportunities, or just the general hyper transactionalism that defines human relationships in this dystopic late stage of capitalism. On this basis, birth rates will continue to drop in first world nations and, honestly, thank fucking goodness. This is a messy way to achieve a reversal in our suicidal quest for growth, but it's better than nothing. It could've been managed more intelligently to avoid most of the discomforts/problems you mentioned, via a three pronged approach involving increased automation, increased immigration, and proper resource management. Although this will not happen, it's more important to get off our addiction to growth, even if it means having created a predicament where the elderly are one of the main victims of this aforementioned ponzi scheme finally falling apart.

The alternative is to import younger people from poorer nations to fill the gaps in the workforce. But they then typically start to consume at local levels, so it doesn't really help with that. And the older natives often don't identify the newcomers as 'one of us', so social tensions increase.

Japan will have the toughest time with this, considering its largely homogeneous population. Next to its historical isolationism, a strong dislike of "gaijin" (outsiders) is still very much present in modern day Japan. Like whites in other countries, the Yamato people, or Wajin, (or what is generally considered traditionally Japanese), want to maintain their ethnic dominance/ubiquity in the country, even when opening up to immigration would greatly lessen the strain of the problems they're going through right now. Those who are considered "hafu" (half Japanese) are already commonly shunned in Japanese society on account of their lack of "purity".

 

[Mentalmick]

World war 3 is long overdue. That'll cull a few hundred million easily, maybe more. And the radioactive fallout will kill another few hundred million. And the ice age it will trigger will kill most of them who's left. Cannibals will eat the rest.

 

[kane]

This is an unfortunate byproduct of growth based economics. It's a ponzi scheme where the more people there are, the more are needed in the future to keep the whole thing going.

Regardless of economic system, on a more fundamental level, you need a certain proportion of the population producing to be able to support those who are not. This would be true even in agrarian pre-capitalist societies. I would guess that it currently roughly works out that each working adult can support one child dependent and one retired adult over the course of their lives. So you could have a relatively stable population. If the birth rate is significantly below replacement, it reduces the burden of child dependents, but the weight of the elderly eventually becomes crushing. There simply aren't enough healthcare workers in the next generation to take care of their elders.

It could've been managed more intelligently to avoid most of the discomforts/problems you mentioned, via a three pronged approach involving increased automation, increased immigration, and proper resource management.

You may be able to automate elderly healthcare to a certain extent, but it's likely to make being old even more bleak. The idea of a bunch of lonely childless retirees being slowly ushered toward death by their robot carers is pretty damn dystopian. You can try to replace those care workers through immigration, but as mentioned previously, those immigrants typically have larger families, who begin to consume at 'western' standards. So it effectively counteracts the drop in the native birth rate, and reduces any positive environmental impact. The birth rate of many European countries would be significantly lower without the importation of people from poorer nations. I'm all for better resource management though.

Next to its historical isolationism, a strong dislike of "gaijin" (outsiders) is still very much present in modern day Japan. Like whites in other countries, the Yamato people, or Wajin, (or what is generally considered traditionally Japanese), want to maintain their ethnic dominance/ubiquity in the country, even when opening up to immigration would greatly lessen the strain of the problems they're going through right now. Those who are considered "hafu" (half Japanese) are already commonly shunned in Japanese society on account of their lack of "purity".

I'm against isolationism (I wouldn't want to live in a closed society, like North Korea.) And against ethnically based 'shunning' or hostility. But I can't really blame the Japanese for wanting to preserve their distinctive culture, or for refusing mass immigration. Nationality is an extension of tribe, which is an extension of family. Homophily (love of those like oneself) seems to be a human universal. People want to feel meaningfully linked to those around them. If I was an elderly Japanese person, I can imagine feeling significantly less comfortable being cared for and dependent on someone who may not share the same first language, customs, values, or any genetic link. That may be lessened by successful integration, but it still generates additional social conflict.

And as I stated, it effectively counteracts the positive impacts of a lower birth rate. So it's pointless from an environmental or sustainability perspective. You may as well just encourage more native births, and you'd get the same result with less social tension.