What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?

[zaphod2016]

I'd like to address the core of the "NWO is going to wipe out 90% of us" theory for a moment.

1. What is the actual carrying capacity of Earth? How many humans could the Earth support? At what point (if ever) can we expect to see populations exceed this limit?

2. Given the option between government-enforced sterilization, or other methods of population control (i.e. a "death camp" scenario), which is the more humane choice?

3. Given the option of limiting population, or allowing it to grow unchecked until it exceeds carrying capacity, and we witness mass starvation, which is the more humane choice?

I hear Jones, et all, argue against the plot to reduce population all the time. And I agree that it raises some rather troubling questions, not only regarding our own reproductive rights, but the fate of our children and grandchildren.

However, I have never heard any alternative solutions put forth.

1. Is it simply a total myth that human population will one day exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth?

2. Assuming its not myth, doesn't the choice come down to tyranny or starvation? Is there a third choice I'm not seeing?

This is in CT because I'm being purely speculative here. I find this an interesting thought experiment.

The year is 2050. Population exceeds 10 billion. Wars and disease have done nothing to curb the long-term population growth of our species. You find yourself the undisputed leader of the world.

Now what? Let em starve? Population control? Third option?

I'm all ears.

[Brainster]

There is no real way to know this. Paul Erlich famously wrote a book in the late 1960s called the Population Bomb, predicting massive die-offs by the 1980s even in advanced countries. This of course did not happen due to the revolution in agriculture which resulted in huge increases in crop yields.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

2. Assuming its not myth, doesn't the choice come down to tyranny or starvation? Is there a third choice I'm not seeing?

Yes. There's also the option of making everyone as rich as possible. The only thing that's ever been shown to have a lasting effect on controlling population growth is wealth.

Of course, that's a bit harder to implement than tyranny or starvation, but there you go.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Yes. There's also the option of making everyone as rich as possible. The only thing that's ever been shown to have a lasting effect on controlling population growth is wealth.

Of course, that's a bit harder to implement than tyranny or starvation, but there you go.

I'm all for it. And I understand that developed nations have negative birth rates- the population explosion is still emanating from the undeveloped world.

But would it be possible for ALL people on Earth to be wealthy? Isn't wealth relative? Would it be possible to have a world where all nations were developed, and standards of living and salaries were comparable throughout the entire planet?

And if the entire world were developed, and all nations exhibited a negative growth rate, wouldn't that shrinking population work against genetic diversity? A few thousand generations out, wouldn't the remaining humans be a mess of inbreeding?

DISCLAIMER: The majority of my knowledge on this subject comes from dystopian sci-fi, so forgive me if I'm just totally wrong.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There is no real way to know this. Paul Erlich famously wrote a book in the late 1960s called the Population Bomb, predicting massive die-offs by the 1980s even in advanced countries. This of course did not happen due to the revolution in agriculture which resulted in huge increases in crop yields.

Related:

Penn & Teller BS (NSFW language)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Alferd_Packer]

What is the carrying capacity of a European Swallow?

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

1. What is the actual carrying capacity of Earth? How many humans could the Earth support? At what point (if ever) can we expect to see populations exceed this limit?

Well be have an indeterminable theoretical limit, or a set of practical limits. If we take the practical limit of substantial ocean fishing, we have exceeded the maximum population by far.

Quote:

2. Given the option between government-enforced sterilization, or other methods of population control (i.e. a "death camp" scenario), which is the more humane choice?

Humane is a bit relative some will prefer sterilization while other will want to out with a fight.

Quote:

3. Given the option of limiting population, or allowing it to grow unchecked until it exceeds carrying capacity, and we witness mass starvation, which is the more humane choice?

Well the general rule is that there is more collateral damage if one waits to take action until the a system fails.

Quote:

The year is 2050. Population exceeds 10 billion. Wars and disease have done nothing to curb the long-term population growth of our species. You find yourself the undisputed leader of the world.
Now what? Let em starve? Population control? Third option?

Strict laws and strict punishments. Basically all criminals gets sterilized.

[Pardalis]

I think one way to wipe out humanity would to introduce a gene that renders females unattractive, and ban the access to alcohol.

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I'm all for it. And I understand that developed nations have negative birth rates- the population explosion is still emanating from the undeveloped world.

But would it be possible for ALL people on Earth to be wealthy? Isn't wealth relative? Would it be possible to have a world where all nations were developed, and standards of living and salaries were comparable throughout the entire planet?

And if the entire world were developed, and all nations exhibited a negative growth rate, wouldn't that shrinking population work against genetic diversity? A few thousand generations out, wouldn't the remaining humans be a mess of inbreeding?

DISCLAIMER: The majority of my knowledge on this subject comes from dystopian sci-fi, so forgive me if I'm just totally wrong.

Spot on (the bolded bit)

Poverty and starvation are a result of inequality. Witness rotting food in the west and dying children in Africa. 30,000 children died today (and yesterday, and tommorow) from preventable causes, according to UNICEF.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I'm all for it. And I understand that developed nations have negative birth rates- the population explosion is still emanating from the undeveloped world.

But would it be possible for ALL people on Earth to be wealthy? Isn't wealth relative? Would it be possible to have a world where all nations were developed, and standards of living and salaries were comparable throughout the entire planet?

No, but that is not a necessary condition for population reduction/stabilization. What is necessary is pretty simple:

1. Economies where having additional children is not necessary economically. In a primitive agricultural society, where crops are grown and harvested by hand, and consumed locally, large families are a net positive, as it means more (relatively) free labor. However in a more modern society, where much of agriculture is automated and consumed far from the place where it is grown, additional children are actually a drain on family resources.

2. Adequate, affordable access to effective birth control. Birth rates dropped dramatically in the US after the birth control pill became widely available, and dropped further after abortion was legalized.

Note as well, that your underlying premise (that lower birth rates are a net positive) may be flawed as well. Social Security-type schemes for the elderly are largely based on a growing population, especially as people continue to live longer due to medical advances.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

But would it be possible for ALL people on Earth to be wealthy? Isn't wealth relative? Would it be possible to have a world where all nations were developed, and standards of living and salaries were comparable throughout the entire planet?

Well, that's why that's the tricky part! I think it would be possible, but it would require a commitment to scientific and technological development that only a very small minority in the world currently demonstrate. To try to equalize wealth at a level that produces zero or negative population growth with current technology would likely be an environmental disaster.

And "wealth" is relative, but there's also the notion of "real wealth", and I expect it's "real wealth" that produces the reduced birthrates. Once you're over a certain threshold of real wealth*, you tend to have fewer kids, even if you're not "wealthy" compared to your neighbours.



*Access to fairly stable and moderate levels of food, clothing, housing, heating, cooling, education, recreation, and other such things

Quote:

And if the entire world were developed, and all nations exhibited a negative growth rate, wouldn't that shrinking population work against genetic diversity? A few thousand generations out, wouldn't the remaining humans be a mess of inbreeding?

I expect we'd find ourselves some sort of happy medium.

But consider, we didn't seem to have many problems with genetic diversity thousands of years ago, when the total human population was much smaller than it is today. Even if we lost the "80%" the CTers always go on about, we'd still have over a billion people, which is a lot of diversity, no matter how you measure it.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Brainster

No, but that is not a necessary condition for population reduction/stabilization. What is necessary is pretty simple:

1. Economies where having additional children is not necessary economically. In a primitive agricultural society, where crops are grown and harvested by hand, and consumed locally, large families are a net positive, as it means more (relatively) free labor. However in a more modern society, where much of agriculture is automated and consumed far from the place where it is grown, additional children are actually a drain on family resources.

2. Adequate, affordable access to effective birth control. Birth rates dropped dramatically in the US after the birth control pill became widely available, and dropped further after abortion was legalized.

Note as well, that your underlying premise (that lower birth rates are a net positive) may be flawed as well. Social Security-type schemes for the elderly are largely based on a growing population, especially as people continue to live longer due to medical advances.

I would add to that the emancipation of women.

[Prometheus]

The theoretical upper limit of carrying capacity should be some function of the total amount of organic elements on the planet and the total amount of energy received from the sun. Of course, the real limit will be much lower, and will fluctuate according to all sorts of environmental and social factors. Plus the realities of politics and logistics will always mean that carrying capacity varies locally moreso than globally.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by Horatius

But consider, we didn't seem to have many problems with genetic diversity thousands of years ago, when the total human population was much smaller than it is today. Even if we lost the "80%" the CTers always go on about, we'd still have over a billion people, which is a lot of diversity, no matter how you measure it.

This is a very good point. Assuming people of all colors, creeds, etc. kept on reproducing, even as overall birth rates dropped, there would be minimal detriment to our genetic diversity.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Plus the realities of politics and logistics will always mean that carrying capacity varies locally moreso than globally.

Very true. Long before we see a global conflict we will see local migrations.

That begs another question:

Forgive a naive cracker in the suburbs, but why don't the starving folks in Africa migrate to more fertile land? Or does it come down to mismanagement? I.e. assuming proper management, could Africa support its population without importing any food?

[rjh01]

One other factor not yet mentioned is the average living standard. If we all use up huge amounts of raw materials then the earth can support far fewer people than it could at third world standard.

Then there is the amount of recycling of materials that are hard to replace that happens.

[JoeyDonuts]

The carrying capacity of the Earth is going to depend on the value of its Strength and Constitution attributes.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

What is the carrying capacity of a European Swallow?

3/7 of it's mass, including strappings, assuming it stays low, is of average build and neglecting the loads air resistance.

African swallows are stronger, but non-migratory, hence useless.

McHrozni

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

The carrying capacity of the Earth is going to depend on the value of its Strength and Constitution attributes.

You really need to take a break from RPGs Joey.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by lionking

You really need to take a break from RPGs Joey.

Your "Sarcasm" attempt fails against my "Obliviousness" skill check roll.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

Your "Sarcasm" attempt fails against my "Obliviousness" skill check roll.

Terminal mana drain. I'm out of here.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I'd like to address the core of the "NWO is going to wipe out 90% of us" theory for a moment.

1. What is the actual carrying capacity of Earth? How many humans could the Earth support? .

if we all were vegetarians, I'd be the Earth could handle a good 20 billion people or more.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by parky76

if we all were vegetarians, I'd be the Earth could handle a good 20 billion people or more.

We will likely bump into another type of problem before we reach 20.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Brainster

No, but that is not a necessary condition for population reduction/stabilization. What is necessary is pretty simple:

1. Economies where having additional children is not necessary economically. In a primitive agricultural society, where crops are grown and harvested by hand, and consumed locally, large families are a net positive, as it means more (relatively) free labor. However in a more modern society, where much of agriculture is automated and consumed far from the place where it is grown, additional children are actually a drain on family resources.

2. Adequate, affordable access to effective birth control. Birth rates dropped dramatically in the US after the birth control pill became widely available, and dropped further after abortion was legalized.

Note as well, that your underlying premise (that lower birth rates are a net positive) may be flawed as well. Social Security-type schemes for the elderly are largely based on a growing population, especially as people continue to live longer due to medical advances.

Automation and removal of harsh manual labor can extend the working productive life of the elder citizen well into old age. This eliminates much of 'end of life care' needs of many as they will be able to look after themselves. Japan has many such in the workforce still.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I'd like to address the core of the "NWO is going to wipe out 90% of us" theory for a moment.

1. What is the actual carrying capacity of Earth?

The answer is actually 300. Anyone who is not me, or a large-busted nymphomaniac, please get off the planet now.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

What is the actual carrying capacity of Earth? How many humans could the Earth support?

Do you mean "maximum technically sustainable" population or "maximum optimal" population? I think those figures would be different. The latter is probably impossible for us to answer; we may have to ask our descendants how they perceive optimality.

FWIW, a few years ago Erlich suggested 2 billion, depending on how consumptive their lifestyles are. A group in Britain called The Optimum Population Trust believes that an optimal or sustainable world population would be between 2.7 billion and 5.1 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/we...pagewanted=all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_Population_Trust

But this does not require a holocaust. Quite the opposite, in fact...

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

which is the more humane choice?

There is another option besides ecocide by overpopulation or totalitarian mass murder. Brainster and Pardalis have already touched on it, but it's worth reminding everyone.

Originally Posted by Pardalis

I would add to that the emancipation of women.

Originally Posted by Brainster

2. Adequate, affordable access to effective birth control. Birth rates dropped dramatically in the US after the birth control pill became widely available, and dropped further after abortion was legalized.

When women have other choices in life, in addition to having children, they tend to have fewer kids than they would without such freedom. The freedom is social and technological. The latter is birth control, the former is higher social status as individual human beings (and not the old kind of status built on having children).

Another related factor is the survival of the children women do have. There is less reason to have large numbers of kids if parents reasonably expect their kids to survive to adulthood. This is where we see effects of public health measures, such as clean water, vaccines and antibiotics, better medical and sanitation techniques, etcetera.


World population forecasts are down, as are measured fertility rates. "Ever since 1968, when the United Nations Population Division predicted that the world population, now 6.3 billion, would grow to at least 12 billion by 2050, the agency has regularly revised its estimates downward. Now it expects population to plateau at nine billion."

"The real missing billions are the babies who were simply never conceived. They weren't conceived because their would-be elder brothers and sisters survived, or because women's lives improved."

"As late as 1970, the world's median fertility level was 5.4 births per woman; in 2000, it was 2.9. Barring war, famine, epidemic or disaster, a country needs a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman to hold steady."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/we...pagewanted=all

The global "Total Fertility per Woman" in 1970-1975, was 4.5 children. In 2000-2005 it was 2.6. This statistic and country-specific details, broken down by age group can be found in this PDF:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...2007_table.pdf

Charts comparing these two time periods are available on the other side of the poster: http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...07_reverse.pdf

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

And if the entire world were developed, and all nations exhibited a negative growth rate, wouldn't that shrinking population work against genetic diversity? A few thousand generations out, wouldn't the remaining humans be a mess of inbreeding?

But these healthier, wealthier, freer future people would probably move around the world more than their ancestors did. (Maybe as much as some of us do now.) Our ancestors tended to remain near their place of birth, so consider genetic diversity then. Now compare that to Africans marrying Chinese, North Americans marrying Indians, Pacific Islanders marrying Scandinavians. That reshuffling of genes will propagate over time. I'm no geneticist, but wouldn't that lead to more diversity?

Especially as Africans get around the world more. The population of Africa overall is more genetically diverse than that of any other continent.

"Because modern humans originated in Africa, there has been more time for changes to accumulate in the African DNA sequences than there has been in other parts of the world, Tishkoff says."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...frica_revealed

"With the exception of the autosomal RSPs, in which an ascertainment bias exists, all systems show greater gene diversity in Africans than in either Europeans or Asians. Africans also have the largest total number of alleles, as well as the largest number of unique alleles, for most systems."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288178/

[justcharlie09]

Originally Posted by Brainster

There is no real way to know this. Paul Erlich famously wrote a book in the late 1960s called the Population Bomb, predicting massive die-offs by the 1980s even in advanced countries. This of course did not happen due to the revolution in agriculture which resulted in huge increases in crop yields.

Personally, I can't believe the twerp is still writing books that get published. How many failed predictions does it take before people stop listening???


Regarding women's reproductive rights, education, raising living standards across the globe, lessening inequality.... yes to all of the above. Clean tech, smarter people, and a healthier world represent the world we should work for... The future probably won't be a utopia (never is), but at least it won't be a dystopia.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The answer is actually 300. Anyone who is not me, or a large-busted nymphomaniac, please get off the planet now.

careful what you wish for, you could very well end up with 299 sets of manboobs

[zaphod2016]

Is there anything resembling a consensus regarding worldwide population circa 2050?

According to the US Census, the population of the USA will be ~420 million in 2050.

Interestingly, "white alone, not hispanic" is expected to make up only 50% of the US population in 2050; this group is expected to peak in 2040. (Not trying to start a big debate over this, I just think its interesting- not necessarily good or bad)

So, current USA pop is ~305 million, projected to grow to ~420m in 40 years, which is a ~38% increase. If we extrapolate that to the current world population of 6.692 billion, we would expect a worldwide pop of ~9.2 billion in 2050.

That seems like a reasonable estimate (9.2 B in 2050), but maybe not:

The US birthrate is only ~14 per 1,000, compared to ~50 per 1,000 in the Congo or Niger. We make up the difference with immigration, so our projected population growth of 38% may not apply to the developing world.

What say you? Worldwide pop in 2050- place your bets.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The answer is actually 300. Anyone who is not me, or a large-busted nymphomaniac, please get off the planet now.

What? I didn't get that at all...

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Is there anything resembling a consensus regarding worldwide population circa 2050?


What say you? Worldwide pop in 2050- place your bets.

Better hope like hell they get that water mess sorted out, cuz with out water there ain't no food and we are in a proper pickle. 2050 isn't far off. As a desert dweller, I worry about water, and Phoenix is real dippy about it.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

If we extrapolate that to the current world population of 6.692 billion, we would expect a worldwide pop of ~9.2 billion in 2050.

Pretty good on the cuff estimate. The UN estimates it will be 9.1, while the US census bureau estimates 9.3, according to Wikipedia.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Pretty good on the cuff estimate. The UN estimates it will be 9.1, while the US census bureau estimates 9.3, according to Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the U.N. makes three estimates for 2050: low, medium, and high. In 2008, they updated their forecast to 8 billion in 2050 as the low estimate, 9.1 billion as the medium variant (and most likely outcome), and 10.5 billion as the high estimate.

The difference between low and medium is half a child per woman, as is the difference between medium and high. That's a tiny change in trajectory, with significant results over time.

See Page 4, Paragraph 2 of this PDF for details on how estimates can shift as new data comes in: http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...essrelease.pdf