Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

How long can society sustain its growing population?

12357

Replies

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.

    No argument, that's why I said probably not viable at least not for solar.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    In principle, you'll get higher gain from the collection array being exposed to the source without atmospheric loss. By concentrating the downlink then atmospheric effects are minimised. By controlling the landing point then distribution loss is reduced.

    At the moment, launch costs and the challenges of maintaining an orbit become the obstacle. Low earth needs a lot of active flight control, geosynchronous increases the lossiness significantly.

    You could, in principle, provide global electricity needs from a small patch of the Sahara. You'd have depleted most of that getting it to the Libyan coast.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,365 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    Yeah I get there aren't clouds to get in the way in space...but launching something into orbit is a pretty high initial cost to wait on your ROI from avoiding some clouds.

    The problem with placing the collectors on land (even in the dessert) is that with current tech, it would take an incredible amount of space to replace what we generate with other sources. You also lose a certain amount of the available energy because of the natural filtering of the sunlight thru the atmosphere.

    Placing the collectors in space gives a much more robust source to collect from - pure, unfiltered sunlight.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    In principle, you'll get higher gain from the collection array being exposed to the source without atmospheric loss. By concentrating the downlink then atmospheric effects are minimised. By controlling the landing point then distribution loss is reduced.

    At the moment, launch costs and the challenges of maintaining an orbit become the obstacle. Low earth needs a lot of active flight control, geosynchronous increases the lossiness significantly.

    You could, in principle, provide global electricity needs from a small patch of the Sahara. You'd have depleted most of that getting it to the Libyan coast.

    Yeah and in theory I could get higher yields off my solar panels by erecting a 60 foot tall scaffold that angles the collectors due south and above any surrounding tree shade rather than put them on my roof. But I'm not going to do that because the cost of doing that would far exceed the amount of energy I would gain from having done so.

    Solar collectors are much MUCH cheaper and easier to maintain on land than in space. I mean, that is pretty evident. It is hard to imagine tech advancing to the point where it is cheaper and a quicker ROI to put panels in space than it is to just put them on land.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    First of all, I've really enjoyed this thread so far, and have considered/thought differently about something almost every time I've read through it.

    I don't have any doubt that mankind can sustain itself in terms of housing, food, energy, etc. If backed into a corner (or presented with enough potential for profit), there isn't much we can't do/solve.

    What I worry about is more social/interpersonal. As the population continues to rise, there is (I feel) greater likelihood of conflict, be it cultural, economic, religious, etc. How will that play out? If backed into a corner, is mankind more apt to take a deep breath and find a compromise, or press the big red "Launch" button?
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field.

    Nonsense. The entirety of the US was "bumf*ck nowhere" a few hundred years ago, and now hundreds of millions of people live in areas where there was zero infrastructure originally.

    Florida was mostly a useless swamp and Arizona was an uninhabitable desert at the beginning of the 20th century - air conditioning was invented and now almost 30 million people live in those states, and real estate is at a premium. Las Vegas was a place with no existing water supply and yet built an infrastructure that will accommodate 40 million tourists this year. Almost any place in the world (within reason) can be developed into a thriving living area with sustainable resources if people have the vision to develop it.

    You are acting like people who live in a certain area are supported by only that area....they aren't. The population of New York city is 8.2 million people and they live in ~450 sq miles of land....but they aren't supported by only 450 sq miles of land. NYC didn't become a mega-city because the land they live on is really good at growing potatoes, it is because it was a hub for the transport of resources from elsewhere...other land.

    Even people who live in a 1 acre plot don't receive all of their resources from that 1 acre...they are supported by much more land than that.

    Pointing to a bunch of empty land relative to populated land and acting like that empty land would support more people based on how much land people currently physically occupy is not realistic at all.

    A few hundred years ago the population of the United States was a lot smaller than it is today. We may live in densely populated zones but we certainly use a lot more land than we did back then.

    We "live on top of eachother" again because it is extremely inefficient to ship goods long distances when instead you can ship them to a single location that can then distribute to a large number of people. That should be pretty obvious. Spreading everyone out would require a LOT more energy usage.



    The empty land I described in the initial post is no different than the land in the population centers around it before they were populated. The same habitability exists, it is just a matter of having people move there and developing it.

    Just taking a random look at a US map, Conception, Missouri (pop 198) is in the center of 4 more populated cities (Lincoln (280k), Omaha (446k), Kansas City (480k), and Des Moines (215k)). There are numerous reasons why some areas in the American West became populated and others didn't, but Conception could easily have been (and still could be) identical to one of these larger 4 cities if enough people wanted to move there.

    The fact that there is overcrowding in urban areas isn't a byproduct of scarce available resources in other areas, it is the byproduct of the reality that most people would rather live somewhere where everything has been completely established versus going through the effort of moving to a rural area with fewer people but also fewer conveniences available.

    If thousands of people move to Conception (my apologies to anyone that may live here, I know nothing about it except that it is extremely small), the city tax revenue increases, they hire more police and firemen, they pave more streets, maybe a Walmart, Starbucks, and Home Depot get built, more people become willing to move here, more houses are built, more taxes are collected, more roads are paved, more businesses are started, etc., keep repeating, and years later, 100,000 people live here just as comfortably as they do in other similarly sized cities.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited May 2018
    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."

    Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.

    That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too

    I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.

    OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.

    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
    1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this change

    Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.

    That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that create an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?

    The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.

    I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited May 2018
    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."

    Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.

    That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too

    I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.

    OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.

    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
    1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this change

    Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.

    That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?

    The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.

    I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.

    Consensus isn't how we do science.


    And yes, I agree that Global prosperity is likely to continue to drive birth rates down and bring us to an equilibrium.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    We may have to get creative with energy production, but Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, and Satellite Power have some very interesting promise. Hi tech Greenhouses could be installed in the top of New build apartments, to provide produce to the tenants.

    We truly live in amazing and wondrous times.

    ...satellite power?

    Still theoretical, but wireless transmission from solar collectors or other geosync generators. Still mostly the realm of Sci-Fi, but interesting in theory. Most likely will never be viable, but some of the applications on a larger and smaller scale are promising, some would require major tech overhauls,

    Uh why not just have the solar collectors on land...seems easier. I'm not convinced all this "empty land" represents tons more room for population growth...but it seems a decent place to put a solar farm.

    In principle, you'll get higher gain from the collection array being exposed to the source without atmospheric loss. By concentrating the downlink then atmospheric effects are minimised. By controlling the landing point then distribution loss is reduced.

    At the moment, launch costs and the challenges of maintaining an orbit become the obstacle. Low earth needs a lot of active flight control, geosynchronous increases the lossiness significantly.

    You could, in principle, provide global electricity needs from a small patch of the Sahara. You'd have depleted most of that getting it to the Libyan coast.

    Yeah and in theory I could get higher yields off my solar panels by erecting a 60 foot tall scaffold that angles the collectors due south and above any surrounding tree shade rather than put them on my roof. But I'm not going to do that because the cost of doing that would far exceed the amount of energy I would gain from having done so.

    Solar collectors are much MUCH cheaper and easier to maintain on land than in space. I mean, that is pretty evident. It is hard to imagine tech advancing to the point where it is cheaper and a quicker ROI to put panels in space than it is to just put them on land.

    There are some structural benefits in a geosynchronous orbit, essentially you can get very large arrays without the massive structures to support them. Until you've got commodities launch at that scale it's not remotely viable. Fwiw I trained in control engineering then spent several years in spacecraft operations in a military context. It's still in interesting academic debate territory and will remain so for a long time.

    Nuclear is a much more attractive option, supplemented with renewables and heat recovery.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."

    Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.

    That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too

    I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.

    OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.

    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
    1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this change

    Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.

    That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?

    The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.

    I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.

    Consensus isn't how we do science.

    In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."

    Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.

    That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too

    I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.

    OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.

    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
    1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this change

    Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.

    That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?

    The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.

    I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.

    Consensus isn't how we do science.

    In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...

    Competing hypothesis with evidence, these are normal fluctuations and not human influenced.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels. The only question is: Will humanity work together in an effective way to slow our inevitable demise? The answer, IMO, is a resounding "no."

    Sure, many of us are doing things to be more "green," but the single most effective measure is to have fewer children. Very few of us are making the decision to remain childfree. Those of us who do are constantly pressured by family, friends, and even strangers to change our mind. Conversely, I've never seen it suggested to not procreate outside of groups who are known to already agree with the sentiment. When suggested outside of such groups, one is shot down with accusations of having racial or ethnic bias even when the suggestion is that nobody procreate regardless of their heritage. As a result of this stubborn culture, we are going to continue to see population growth and over-consumption of resources at faster and faster rates all the way up until we make ourselves extinct as a species.

    That’s one of the best parodies I’ve ever read. First class. And amusing too

    I'm sorry you misunderstood... I'm 100% serious.

    OK, I'll take you seriously for just a second.

    It's too late already. Over-consumption of Earth's resources has led to global climate change, which has now reached irreversible levels.
    1. Where's the evidence that humanity is the cause of this change

    Notwithstanding the rest of this, there is a clear consensus that human activity is the most explicit source of climate change. We're seeing the effects of that now as historically closed trade routes open up, we see increasing extreme weather and we see the effects on changing agriculture opportunities.

    That's where you get into the so what? What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are the second and third order consequences of societal choices. As we move towards cultivation techniques that require greater active management does that it an inevitability of greater urbanisation; driving, and driven by, the distribution challenge upthread?

    The answer is not have fewer children, although again as highlighted birth rates are declining anyway.

    I'm not seeing that debate happening outside some fairly niche communities.

    Consensus isn't how we do science.

    In the absence of a competing hypothesis with some compelling evidence behind it...

    Competing hypothesis with evidence, these are normal fluctuations and not human influenced.

    So you're not arguing that the climate is not changing at some pace, but that is not related to human activity... Hmm

    Anyway, the more interesting aspect is that "so what" aspect. How do societies respond to that change? What are the sources of conflict in the future? How will those that currently have power hang on to it, and how will others try to break that power and gain it themselves?

    You alluded upthread to how that power plays out in aid distribution, and we see a kleptocracy in Russia, with clear indications of the same elsewhere. Conflict is more likely than collaboration to adapt to the changing environment.

    Most of the solutions described in this thread require a greater degree of social conformance than is likely in large populations, so how much of an increase in authoritarianism will we see? What effects will we see from greater concentration, and what vulnerabilities does that create?
  • J_NY_Z
    J_NY_Z Posts: 2,535 Member
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »

    If you'd read the exchanges above, you'd find that there's more than enough land for 4-10 times our current population, and with the Israeli method enough water for 50x our population.

    About 10 years ago I took a road trip from Cleveland to Las Vegas, driving through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada on the way there and Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio on the way back. It is amazing how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is out there, there are stretches for hundreds of miles where there is absolutely no trace of civilization on either side of the highway. We have made the choice to settle in urban areas and suffocate ourselves by living on top of each other - there is an incredible amount of space available to sustain untold billions of people comfortably in the US and throughout the world, if we choose to develop it.

    Well to be honest we "choose" to live in cities because of supply chains. Because it is not practical to shunt electricity, water, supplies, materials etc etc all over the place. The idea that you could get all you can get in a city out in bumf*ck nowhere is a little silly as is the idea that everyone is just capable of subsistence farming wherever there is an open field.

    Nonsense. The entirety of the US was "bumf*ck nowhere" a few hundred years ago, and now hundreds of millions of people live in areas where there was zero infrastructure originally.

    Florida was mostly a useless swamp and Arizona was an uninhabitable desert at the beginning of the 20th century - air conditioning was invented and now almost 30 million people live in those states, and real estate is at a premium. Las Vegas was a place with no existing water supply and yet built an infrastructure that will accommodate 40 million tourists this year. Almost any place in the world (within reason) can be developed into a thriving living area with sustainable resources if people have the vision to develop it.

    You are acting like people who live in a certain area are supported by only that area....they aren't. The population of New York city is 8.2 million people and they live in ~450 sq miles of land....but they aren't supported by only 450 sq miles of land. NYC didn't become a mega-city because the land they live on is really good at growing potatoes, it is because it was a hub for the transport of resources from elsewhere...other land.

    Even people who live in a 1 acre plot don't receive all of their resources from that 1 acre...they are supported by much more land than that.

    Pointing to a bunch of empty land relative to populated land and acting like that empty land would support more people based on how much land people currently physically occupy is not realistic at all.

    A few hundred years ago the population of the United States was a lot smaller than it is today. We may live in densely populated zones but we certainly use a lot more land than we did back then.

    We "live on top of eachother" again because it is extremely inefficient to ship goods long distances when instead you can ship them to a single location that can then distribute to a large number of people. That should be pretty obvious. Spreading everyone out would require a LOT more energy usage.



    The empty land I described in the initial post is no different than the land in the population centers around it before they were populated. The same habitability exists, it is just a matter of having people move there and developing it.

    Just taking a random look at a US map, Conception, Missouri (pop 198) is in the center of 4 more populated cities (Lincoln (280k), Omaha (446k), Kansas City (480k), and Des Moines (215k)). There are numerous reasons why some areas in the American West became populated and others didn't, but Conception could easily have been (and still could be) identical to one of these larger 4 cities if enough people wanted to move there.

    The fact that there is overcrowding in urban areas isn't a byproduct of scarce available resources in other areas, it is the byproduct of the reality that most people would rather live somewhere where everything has been completely established versus going through the effort of moving to a rural area with fewer people but also fewer conveniences available.

    If thousands of people move to Conception (my apologies to anyone that may live here, I know nothing about it except that it is extremely small), the city tax revenue increases, they hire more police and firemen, they pave more streets, maybe a Walmart, Starbucks, and Home Depot get built, more people become willing to move here, more houses are built, more taxes are collected, more roads are paved, more businesses are started, etc., keep repeating, and years later, 100,000 people live here just as comfortably as they do in other similarly sized cities.

    Maybe I am not explaining my point well.

    If you have an area of land that is 100 units by 100 units and you have 1 million people living there but they are all in an area that is 10 units by 10 units large you can't just automatically assume that there is plenty of resource to support a much larger population of 100 million people simply on the basis that the people are densely populated. The fact that much 99% of that 100 x 100 area is "empty" doesn't mean that the population can increase 100x.

    In your example of Conception growing in population my point would be that as it grows the amount of resources it requires to be brought in increases. A city requires so much more land to operate than the land it is sitting on. It doesn't matter where that land is, that isn't the point....its that more land is required with a larger population and I'm not jus talking about the land that population physically occupies....I'm talking about the land required to support that population.

    We build farms where there are good growing conditions. We build cities at hubs of commerce. The fact that you can build a city where the farming isn't great isn't relevant.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise

    Yeah I don't think so either. I think people who say X years from now Y people will be starving because population will be A and the world can only support B are really stretching.

    I think the answer falls somewhere between "OMG we are all going to die" and "look at all this empty land, we are fine".
  • Westschmeis
    Westschmeis Posts: 350 Member
    It is fairly clear that world population will begin to decline around 2050-2060, due to birth rate declines, and could be accelerated with expanded quality education for women. Once that women realize their ability to choose and control their own lives, the population explosion is over.

    The big problem will be finding a post capatilism economic structure that can succeed for the masses during a shrinking world population. Could be a much bigger problem than over population, IMHO.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise

    With reference to which affect? That the global climate is warming up or that population growth is a factor?
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    I’m also not convinced that we have sufficient quality data to determine a trend directionally or ratewise

    With reference to which affect? That the global climate is warming up or that population growth is a factor?

    Also curious.