Overpopulation in 2023

[MSC]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

You can apply the same argument to multiple level. E.g. within a given population, you could identify those who use a disproportionate amount of resources (e.g. private jets).  But you could also look worldwide and look at populations that have a higher per capita consumption. I.e. the main point is that consumption is not equally distributed and folks who worry about overpopulation usually conveniently focus on measures that excludes themselves form being part of the problem, if that makes sense. 

Yeah, that makes sense. Although I do feel that on an individual level as a citizen of a high consuming nation, the scale of the overconsumption problem (because as you've made clear, a 10billion transitional phase followed by a organic population reduction, isn't much of a problem) is daunting and the expectation of purchaser power being a deciding factor, is at odds with what we know about consumer behaviour and human nature. Corporate policy structures are much more maleable and quicker to change than human nature is. I think there are plenty of people who are aware they are part of the problem that wish to be part of the solution and some who are actively being part of the solution while stuck being part of the problem, at a small scale. 

I fall into the daunted category and unsure of what I can do to convince people to not only consume less, but to switch to more ethical sources for what they do consume when large corporations have cornered the affordability market so that most who live paycheck to paycheck, have nowhere else to go but to the companies that not only consume the most, enable individual overconsumption on a massive scale. 

Apologies if I'm getting off topic and overconsumption needs it's own thread, I guess I just agree with you that overpopulation isn't really problem provided there are no large shifting changes in fertility rates or lifespans. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Simple extrapolation suggests therefore that assuming 10 billion will be present around 2085, around 50-60 this will drop back to 8 billion (ca. 2022 levels). And about a hundred years later it may level out around 2 billion.

Those same projections also show that the average age would be about 85, and for the system to sustain itself, retirement age would need to be about 95.
( I pulled those age numbers out of my rear; but I assume you know what I mean )

Medicine, biology and genetics had better start working on keeping us healthy, capable and cognizant well past that age.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Those same projections also show that the average age would be about 85, and for the system to sustain itself, retirement age would need to be about 95.
( I pulled those age numbers out of my rear; but I assume you know what I mean )

Actually I am not quite certain what you mean. The issues of extrapolation? Or the issues of aging populations with lower birth rates? 

[MigL]

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough; lower birth rates leading to aging population problem.

Currently countered by immigration from high birth rate countries to low birth rate countries. But what happens when most all countries go to a low birth rate as in the extrapolation ?
If there are less young working people to pay taxes, there is less money available for the greater number of the elderly pensions.
The system becomes unsustainable unless people work, and are able to work, to a much older age.

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough; lower birth rates leading to aging population problem.

Currently countered by immigration from high birth rate countries to low birth rate countries. But what happens when most all countries go to a low birth rate as in the extrapolation ?
If there are less young working people to pay taxes, there is less money available for the greater number of the elderly pensions.
The system becomes unsustainable unless people work, and are able to work, to a much older age.

The system becomes unsustainable, when the amount of work done isn't enough to feed us...  

Age has little to do with it...

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Currently countered by immigration from high birth rate countries to low birth rate countries. But what happens when most all countries go to a low birth rate as in the extrapolation ?

Due to shifts in life expectancy are indeed getting older and it is inevitable that the median age will go up from the current ca. 30 yrs. A declining birth rate will further the trend. However, the median age increase will also decline, as with slowing birth rates previous (older) generations will not outnumber the next generation at some point. Assuming that there is a steady state, there will be an equilibrium of age distributions, too. I think projections put the median age around 40ish by 2100, so perhaps somewhere between 40 and 50 might be realistic?

[AIkonoklazt]

On 2/11/2024 at 7:26 AM, MigL said:

It's simple enough.
If you stop searching for drivel,  the app's algorithm will stop feeding you drivel.

The keyword isn't "Elon" or "Musk" but "technology"

[Endy0816]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough; lower birth rates leading to aging population problem.

Currently countered by immigration from high birth rate countries to low birth rate countries. But what happens when most all countries go to a low birth rate as in the extrapolation ?
If there are less young working people to pay taxes, there is less money available for the greater number of the elderly pensions.
The system becomes unsustainable unless people work, and are able to work, to a much older age.

We'll probably switch over to widespread automation and/or artificial means to maintain population levels.

[TheVat]

Reading this Japanese philosopher on degrowth and moving away from capitalism, towards "eco socialism," I thought this might be pertinent to overpop and resource use under the present system.

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/03/why-climate-change-action-requires-degrowth-to-make-our-planet-sustainable/

...Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous.

As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us.

 

[iNow]

Capitalism isn’t necessarily to blame, at least not as much as our failure to include negative externalities into the costs paid by producers and consumers of goods and services. 

Manufacturer doesn’t get fined for poisoning the water. Consumer doesn’t get taxed for continuing to buy goods from that manufacturer. The cycle of water poisoning persists while healthcare needs skyrocket and economic burdens get shifted (shafted?) to everyone downstream who weren’t ever even involved in the transaction. 

Carbon taxes were an attempt to address this and it want capitalism that made it fail. It was politics and short term self-interest among plutocrats. 

[TheVat]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Carbon taxes were an attempt to address this and it want capitalism that made it fail. It was politics and short term self-interest among plutocrats. 

Short term self-interest among plutocrats sounds like another way to say "capitalism."  Or "late stage capitalism" anyway.

I will try to answer your points better tomorrow.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Short term self-interest among plutocrats sounds like another way to say "capitalism."  Or "late stage capitalism" anyway.

You’re not wrong. I, in fact, paused with a similar self-critique when typing it.

I think where maybe I landed after chewing upon it momentarily was how assigning capitalism as a root cause for our mediocre milquetoast attempts at mitigating climate change thus far is both a) too simplistic, and b) too convenient a scapegoat to emotionally let ourselves as individuals off the hook.

Perhaps a better root cause of our Fiddling_Nero-level lethargy on climate gets framed as a sort of selfish shortsightedness; a desire for relief in the present moment at the expense of some still unrealized potential future narrative.

At the risk of being reductive: Capitalism isn’t the root cause of anything, really. Dopamine and how we each act to spike it is.

That won’t change by switching the social order to a more socialistic or even communistic one, though would certainly be helpful if we could all just be a little less horrible to each other and think a bit more about what’s left when we’re gone.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re not wrong. I, in fact, paused with a similar self-critique when typing it.

I think where maybe I landed after chewing upon it momentarily was how assigning capitalism as a root cause for our mediocre milquetoast attempts at mitigating climate change thus far is both a) too simplistic, and b) too convenient a scapegoat to emotionally let ourselves as individuals off the hook.

Perhaps a better root cause of our Fiddling_Nero-level lethargy on climate gets framed as a sort of selfish shortsightedness; a desire for relief in the present moment at the expense of some still unrealized potential future narrative.

At the risk of being reductive: Capitalism isn’t the root cause of anything, really. Dopamine and how we each act to spike it is.

That won’t change by switching the social order to a more socialistic or even communistic one, though would certainly be helpful if we could all just be a little less horrible to each other and think a bit more about what’s left when we’re gone.

Huxley was indeed prescient on the subject.

Let's hope Nietsche was too.

[TheVat]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

At the risk of being reductive: Capitalism isn’t the root cause of anything, really. Dopamine and how we each act to spike it is.

That won’t change by switching the social order to a more socialistic or even communistic one, though would certainly be helpful if we could all just be a little less horrible to each other and think a bit more about what’s left when we’re gone.

Agree that all such socially structured causes have deeper roots.  If we can't fix dopamine rushes, maybe we could try some form of socialism and combine it with Green ideas.  The Scandinavian Model seems to go that direction.  And consuming less has reached the status of a fad in some wealthy countries, though it's really hard to say how far that will go.  People who embrace Marie Kondo or home minimalism or Tiny Houses may not always stick with that.  A minimalism that made community sharing its focus (as the Japanese fellow spoke of) would probably need a near-miraculous resurgence of the Counterculture in the US.  I.e. Americans would be more motivated by framing it in terms of less housework, more disposable income, fewer time payments...

[geordief]

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Agree that all such socially structured causes have deeper roots.  If we can't fix dopamine rushes, maybe we could try some form of socialism and combine it with Green ideas.  The Scandinavian Model seems to go that direction.  And consuming less has reached the status of a fad in some wealthy countries, though it's really hard to say how far that will go.  People who embrace Marie Kondo or home minimalism or Tiny Houses may not always stick with that.  A minimalism that made community sharing its focus (as the Japanese fellow spoke of) would probably need a near-miraculous resurgence of the Counterculture in the US.  I.e. Americans would be more motivated by framing it in terms of less housework, more disposable income, fewer time payments...

Could we not just make the world a little bigger and carry on as normal?

Dig a hole into the centre of the earth and let off a nuclear bomb ( or an anti gravity device ?) so as to increase the radius of the planet to a suitable degree.

The surface would expand and there would be endless opportunities for  new resource exploitation  and enough lebensraum   for all.

Those who don't like the idea could just sign up with Elon Musk.

[Sensei]

On 5/3/2024 at 8:23 PM, TheVat said:

Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us.

That's pretty silly. There are 2781 billionaires with assets of $1 billion or more, and 8 billion people have less. These are assets, i.e. stocks, ownership of buildings, planes, boats, cars etc. Even if each billionaire consumed (what does that even mean?) like 100 ordinary people, or even 100,000 ordinary people, it would be a drop in the ocean.. A billionaire may give up flying private jets to avoid generating more greenhouse gases, but it won't change anything, because those extra tons of fuel are a microscopic amount compared to the rest of the Western world's population.

Looking at the list of countries with daily food consumption, we see that the average American eats twice as much kcal (211%) as poor people in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake Not some billionaire, not some millionaire, but the average John Doe (335 millions of them). This has ecologic, economic and health consequences. Ecological consequences because more CO₂ and CH₄ is created during production of twice as much food. Economical consequences because farmers, truck drivers, food industry workers, stock clerks, etc. have jobs. Health consequences - epidemic of obesity..

Analyzing where there is room for optimization is a good idea to start with a chart with industries:

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

 

 

Edited May 4 by Sensei

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, geordief said:

Could we not just make the world a little bigger and carry on as normal?

Dig a hole into the centre of the earth and let off a nuclear bomb ( or an anti gravity device ?) so as to increase the radius of the planet to a suitable degree.

The surface would expand and there would be endless opportunities for  new resource exploitation  and enough lebensraum   for all.

Chuckle.  

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

That's pretty silly. There are 2781 billionaires with assets of $1 billion or more, and 8 billion people have less. These are assets, i.e. stocks, ownership of buildings, planes, boats, cars etc. Even if each billionaire consumed (what does that even mean?) like 100 ordinary people, or even 100,000 ordinary people, it would be a drop in the ocean....

Erm, I think by wealthy he means nations, i.e. most people who live in the Europe, US, Japan, ME, etc.  and enjoy a high-resource high-carbon footprint lifestyle.  He wasn't meaning just billionaires?

[Sensei]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Erm, I think by wealthy he means nations, i.e. most people who live in the Europe, US, Japan, ME, etc.  and enjoy a high-resource high-carbon footprint lifestyle.  He wasn't meaning just billionaires?

Quote from your link: "Production Letters found that wealthy individuals produce more greenhouse gases than poor individuals, particularly due to their extensive use of private aircraft and yachts, as well as their massive real estate holdings all over the planet."

(aviation and shipping (private aviation, and yachts? they are fractions of overall aviation and shipping) they are at the bottom of statistics of industries which cause majority of problems)

In the case of a one-to-one relationship, this is obviously true. The more money you have, the more you buy, and the more you spend, the more waste you produce, and so on. But there are very few happy millionaires+ around the world, so the overall effect is microscopic. If all billionaires stopped using private jets, there would be no difference in the statistics, unlike stopping the aviation of average people (like during 9/11 or COVID-19).

Should a millionaire or billionaire use a scheduled airline? Of course. It is good for their mental health and the environment. Although this is demagoguery.

 

Edited May 5 by Sensei

[npts2020]

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

stopping the aviation of average people

Do you not realize the "average" person can't afford to even buy a plane ticket to fly? The "average" person in the US and a few other places in the world might afford it but not the majority of the people on the planet.

[MigL]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:23 PM, TheVat said:

Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us.

Absolutely.

Since technology, transportation and agriculture are such large sources of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, let's scale it down, and stop sending food aid to those countries that don't emit nearly as much GHGs, but can't feed themselves.

Oh ... wait. That's not what you had in mind ?

I don't mean this as a criticism of your post; we certainly have excesses.
It's not a simple problem, and it certainly doesn't lend itself to simple solutions

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Since technology, transportation and agriculture are such large sources of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, let's scale it down, and stop sending food aid to those countries that don't emit nearly as much GHGs, but can't feed themselves.

In developed countries electricity and the transport make biggest bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture in Canada, for example makes up around 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions (mostly in forms of methane, associated with meat production, I believe). Conversely, transport and energy is about is about 50%. For transportation I do not have more detailed values at hand, but an average the estimate is about 60% for personal transportation. I don't know how much food Canada sends out in help, but I doubt the associated GHG emissions are going to make much of a blip.

[Ken Fabian]

My own view is that the lifestyle choices of the wealthy are much less significant than their investment and business choices - and I can forgive a lot personal extravagant wastefulness where they commit their businesses to reducing emissions and environmental footprints. With a shift to low emissions primary energy any direct link between consumption and emissions gets attenuated - the solution to air travel emissions being low emissions aircraft rather than forgoing air travel.

There are other environmental costs and issues - but I think it doesn't help to focus on the personal lifestyles of (the exceptionally rare) wealthy person who advocates for climate action, for supposed hypocrisy when so many others are extravagantly wasteful and advocate (in ways that those without wealth cannot) against climate action. The latter may not be hypocritical per se, but their rejection of responsibility and accountability looks like a more significant ethical failure. The former may well support the development of low emissions aircraft where the latter oppose it.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Absolutely.

Since technology, transportation and agriculture are such large sources of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, let's scale it down, and stop sending food aid to those countries that don't emit nearly as much GHGs, but can't feed themselves.

Oh ... wait. That's not what you had in mind ?

I don't mean this as a criticism of your post; we certainly have excesses.
It's not a simple problem, and it certainly doesn't lend itself to simple solutions

My quote was a quote from the article I posted on Saito - the interview makes clear that his critique of capitalism and consumerism is more complex than what you seem to be taking away from a brief clip.  Saito devotes an entire book to it.  

I know this site has codified the idea that people can discuss a topic without reading linked articles, and can just respond to pull-quotes.  I do not always agree with that.  

[MigL]

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Saito devotes an entire book to it. 

Oh, you expected me to read the book before replying ?
( just kidding; I know what you mean )