How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[cerad2]

Exponential math can be fun. As long as the average number of births exceed the average number of deaths then the population will experience an exponential growth rate. For a given growth rate we can calculate the time it take for the population to double. The trick is trying to put a reasonable number on our future growth rate.

For the last few thousand years the human race has had a growth rate between 1 and 2 percent. Just to keep things simple, lets assume a future rate of about .8% which yields a doubling factor of 100 years.

So if we start with 6 billion people in the year 2000, we would end up with 12 billion in 2100. Not an unreasonable number. The fun begins when we extrapolate further. By 2200 we would have 24 billion people. Hmmm.

Jump ahead 2000 years (just to make things a bit biblical). Now we have a population of 3.67002E+15 or 3,670,000,000,000,000 or 3.67 million billion people. Yikes, even Texas might have trouble supporting that many people!

But science conquers all so we can look ahead roughly a million years or so with a population of 1.2E1023 which (at 50 kg per person) implies that the entire earth has been turned into people. But why stop at the earth? In about 2 million years the entire mass of the solar system will be turned into people. Toss in interstellar travel and the entire galaxy becomes people in roughly 10 million years. Speed of light starts to become a serious factor but in 100 million years or so the entire known universe becomes people. At that point, I think we may reach a limit of some kind.

The bottom line is that as long as we maintain a positive growth rate, no matter how low, we will indeed run out of resources. Just a question of when. And even 100 million years is not that long.

 

[GEddie]

Exponential math can be fun. As long as the average number of births exceed the average number of deaths then the population will experience an exponential growth rate. For a given growth rate we can calculate the time it take for the population to double. The trick is trying to put a reasonable number on our future growth rate.

For the last few thousand years the human race has had a growth rate between 1 and 2 percent. Just to keep things simple, lets assume a future rate of about .8% which yields a doubling factor of 100 years.

So if we start with 6 billion people in the year 2000, we would end up with 12 billion in 2100. Not an unreasonable number. The fun begins when we extrapolate further. By 2200 we would have 24 billion people. Hmmm.

Jump ahead 2000 years (just to make things a bit biblical). Now we have a population of 3.67002E+15 or 3,670,000,000,000,000 or 3.67 million billion people. Yikes, even Texas might have trouble supporting that many people!

But science conquers all so we can look ahead roughly a million years or so with a population of 1.2E1023 which (at 50 kg per person) implies that the entire earth has been turned into people. But why stop at the earth? In about 2 million years the entire mass of the solar system will be turned into people. Toss in interstellar travel and the entire galaxy becomes people in roughly 10 million years. Speed of light starts to become a serious factor but in 100 million years or so the entire known universe becomes people. At that point, I think we may reach a limit of some kind.

The bottom line is that as long as we maintain a positive growth rate, no matter how low, we will indeed run out of resources. Just a question of when. And even 100 million years is not that long.

As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.”

You can make numerical projections say anything.

The fact is that natural populations in a closed system do not rise out of control, they hit an inflection point and then flatten out. In the western countries, we are seeing that with human life already, as people get married later and have fewer kids at older ages. As Asia becomes more prosperous, we will see that there, too. It’s already happening in Japan.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, finally someone has finally attempted to do some actual math!

I’m blown away.

A million years.

Cool.

A million years is a blink of an epochal eye.

We will be there before ya know it.

[How many years of written history do we have do far? How many years of “cave paintings”? How far back into human history can we look?]

Another question: can you think of any NATURAL phenomena that might limit populations?

[Hint: polar magnetic reversal]

 

[Warrior1979]

Well, finally someone has finally attempted to do some actual math!

We know the math and science involved, but there are so many variables its impossible to pin it down.

A million years.

It depends on the (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ve seen calculations estimating as low as 700 years, assuming continued exponential growth and the ability to convert all mass into energy. Of course at the end of that there would be nothing but empty space where the Earth used to be.

 

[wynnejj]

The fact is that natural populations in a closed system do not rise out of control, they hit an inflection point and then flatten out. In the western countries, we are seeing that with human life already, as people get married later and have fewer kids at older ages.

Humans defy the natural order of how natural populations grow in a closed system. There is nothing natural about how our human population is flattening out. Having fewer kids and getting married later is not an outcome of natural animal behavior. I don’t think that your illustration is valid from a natural point of view.

Natural population control as defined by mother nature would be more on the order of limited food resources results in reduced fertility. Maybe smaller people who can live on smaller amounts of food would fair better when it comes to forces of natural selection.

The fact that our world society is actively limiting family size is not a natural phenomenon. It is a man-made decision. Let me add that even Natural Family Planning is unnatural when talking about how natural populations grow in a closed system.

 

[wynnejj]

Exponential math can be fun. As long as the average number of births exceed the average number of deaths then the population will experience an exponential growth rate. For a given growth rate we can calculate the time it take for the population to double. The trick is trying to put a reasonable number on our future growth rate.

For the last few thousand years the human race has had a growth rate between 1 and 2 percent. Just to keep things simple, lets assume a future rate of about .8% which yields a doubling factor of 100 years.

So if we start with 6 billion people in the year 2000, we would end up with 12 billion in 2100. Not an unreasonable number. The fun begins when we extrapolate further. By 2200 we would have 24 billion people. Hmmm.

Per the CIA factbook, the total land mass of the earth is 148.94 sq km.
In acres, that is 36.8 billion acres.
Let’s say only 36 billion acres are arable.
In year 2000, each person would have 6 acres (36 billion acres divided by 6 billion people).
Every 100 years, the population doubles so the acreage per person is cut in half.
At 2100, each person has 3 acres.
At 2200, each person has 1.5 acres.
At 2300, each person has 0.75 acres.
At 2400, each person has 0.375 acres.

Per Kimmie’s post #142, 1 acre can feed 2.5 people with sustainable farming.
That means each person needs 0.400 acres for their yearly food requirements.

Looks like we are overpopulated in year 2400!

 

[wynnejj]

Per the CIA factbook, the total land mass of the earth is 148.94 sq km.
In acres, that is 36.8 billion acres.

Correction: 148.94 million sq km (at 247.1 acres per sq km) = 36.8 billion acres

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Can someone also, in addition to the reversal of the magnetic poles … which comes about with almost mathematical predictability … factor in some mega-mega-volcanic eruptions? Krakatoa and above? Yellowstone? Vesuvius?

What concerns me most, is the apparent inability to separate fact from “fantasy” [aka, BS].

People are willing to make draconian policy decisions based on something that may or may not happen in a million years … or 2400 … all the other predictions have gone wrong long ago.

People are worried about the mathematical progression of potential population growth … out to infinity.

But then, they seemingly choose to overlook progress in science and technology. What we have accomplished so far … and where we might be able to make more progress in the future.

Of course, most forecasts of future technology have been off … we do not all have helicopters in our back yards … that kind of thing.

But, the progress in “computers” has been astounding … silicon technology … metallurgy … distributed processing. Some government officials are touting networking … but networking is ten years old. Now it’s “cloud”. The academics are decades behind knowing what is really going on out there.

Used to be you needed to know “something” about computers … now you just have an app.

RIMM and MSFT and Google are already “middleaged”.

Even learning is changing … the concession to “distance learning” [yeah, the “University of Phoenix” stuff] is the “hybrid”. It’s putting the faculty lounge out of business.

So get used to the idea that your faculty/ professor experts are full of “stuff” and learn to separate fantasy from reality.

And we have incredible luddites spreading panic where-ever possible. Was watching a program in which a meeting of greens rattled off a monster laundry list of problems … and then the program’s presenter visited an ACTUAL facility and they showed him how and where they had already dealt with all of the alleged problems. Not a problem, but the luddites and “saboteurs” [throwers of wooden shoes into the machinery] would have none of it.

Anyway, I understand that your professors at school have a point of view and tell you all about it.

But at some point, you are going to have to realize that the professors are plainly … engaging in wholesale distortions.

You all need to learn how to separate reality from the academic / faculty lounge unchecked paranoid fantasies.

Get out into the real world.

[Visit a REAL volcano.] It’s not the same as watching one on television. Trust me.

 

[GEddie]

Humans defy the natural order of how natural populations grow in a closed system. There is nothing natural about how our human population is flattening out. Having fewer kids and getting married later is not an outcome of natural animal behavior. I don’t think that your illustration is valid from a natural point of view.

Mea culpa.

I was in a hurry, and so did not thrash out my thought process.

I should have said that in the western countries, we see that the increasing economic burden of having children is driving people to have fewer children at older ages, hence the flattening out of the head-count. Sure, this is not purely “natural.” There is conscious thought involved. But we are natural beings. And it takes a deeply-rooted stimulus to redirect a natural instinct.

Natural population control as defined by mother nature would be more on the order of limited food resources results in reduced fertility.

Ok, but when you have natural beings who possess a mind, then conscious behaviors affecting reproduction should be taken into account as well. As in, “We need to gain some financial security before we attempt to have kids.”

We gather slips of green paper rather than nuts, but the motivation is the same.

Maybe smaller people who can live on smaller amounts of food would fair better when it comes to forces of natural selection.

Sure, and we see that in a minor way in human life, where older nations having a greater degree of soil exhaustion have a partial tendency to grow smaller human bodies. It’s not much of an effect, though.

The fact that our world society is actively limiting family size is not a natural phenomenon. It is a man-made decision. Let me add that even Natural Family Planning is unnatural when talking about how natural populations grow in a closed system.

Well, the “world society” is a mirage; there is only a melange of national societies. It’s what each one does about population that makes the difference.

There is nothing wrong with “unnatural” per se. “Natural” is for everybody to scrabble in the earth to stay fed, have a crowd of children most of whom would not live, and die of skin infections and other preventable conditions at young ages. Our “natural” bodies are no match for “nature.” We use a mind to survive, and now the young generation is using theirs to manage the economic necessities of family life.

“Unnatural” is wrong only when killing (abortion) or interference with the body’s functioning (i.e. contraception) is involved.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[cerad2]

Mea culpa.
I should have said that in the western countries, we see that the increasing economic burden of having children is driving people to have fewer children at older ages, hence the flattening out of the head-count. Sure, this is not purely “natural.” There is conscious thought involved. But we are natural beings. And it takes a deeply-rooted stimulus to redirect a natural instinct.
…
“Unnatural” is wrong only when killing (abortion) or interference with the body’s functioning (i.e. contraception) is involved.

ICXC NIKA.

Exactly. And the deeply-rooted stimulus is (drum roll) Catholicism. Imagine if the billion or so Catholics existing today really did follow the Churches teaching with respect to procreation. No contraceptives. No sex without the possibility of creating life. Now granted that the number of out of wedlock births would plummet but still, I know my parents had 10 kids. And of course Catholicism isn’t the only religion that encourages population growth. We really could have 100 billion people in a few centuries.

 

[wynnejj]

Let’s talk about natural population control for a second. Take the example of a wolf pack. Their territory has limited food supply. If all members of the pack had sexual partners, there would be too many wolves and wolf packs for the limited resources of their territory. What is the response of mother nature through the process of natural selection? One alpha male wolf mates with his one selected alpha female wolf. All the rest abstain!

In my example which reached the conclusion of overpopulation in the year 2400, there were several premises which give preferential treatment to those who say overpopulation is a myth and not in the near future.

1. Almost all land surface was considered arable, even though the CIA fact book says only about 12% is arable. That gives a number that is skewed approximately 8 times greater in favor of those who think man’s invention will make almost all land arable.
2. It takes the premise that crop yields are roughly based on what we consider as sustainable farming, per Kimmie’s model.
3. The supply of petroleum and energy is not an issue in this model.
4. I’m accepting the 0.8% annual growth rate which really reflects that the world is already highly effective in limiting family sizes. In my opinion, it would be more “natural” to choose a much higher annual growth rate for our model.

With the deck greatly stacked in favor of premises held by the “Overpopulation is a Myth” line of reasoning, I think that I’ve adequately demonstrated that overpopulation is a concern in the not too far distant future of 4 centuries.

Overpopulation is a concern - unless you are a wolf pack.

 

[GEddie]

By AD 2400, if human life has not succeeded in drawing its energy and most of its mineral resources from space, we deserve a population crash, IMNAAHO.

 

[Warrior1979]

Humans defy the natural order of how natural populations grow in a closed system. There is nothing natural about how our human population is flattening out. Having fewer kids and getting married later is not an outcome of natural animal behavior. I don’t think that your illustration is valid from a natural point of view.

Natural population control as defined by mother nature would be more on the order of limited food resources results in reduced fertility. Maybe smaller people who can live on smaller amounts of food would fair better when it comes to forces of natural selection.

The fact that our world society is actively limiting family size is not a natural phenomenon. It is a man-made decision. Let me add that even Natural Family Planning is unnatural when talking about how natural populations grow in a closed system.

Quite frankly, there is nothing natural about the lifestyle of modern man. One will argue that the use of condoms is unnatural, but yet don’t say the same thing about flying a jet to their next vacation or using an iPad. One can’t randomly select what is unnatural to support their argument and ignore the rest. It’s all interconnected.

 

[Warrior1979]

People are willing to make draconian policy decisions based on something that may or may not happen in a million years … or 2400 … all the other predictions have gone wrong long ago.

Why take the extreme position in everything? What do you have against acting responsibly?

People are worried about the mathematical progression of potential population growth … out to infinity.

I am not. The problem is that simply keeping the population at current levels requires a certain level of finite resources. If we simply kept the population at current levels, and the population of China had the same level of living standards as the U.S., we would have a major resource shortage.

To re-emphasize, it’s not the population that matters. It’s the population level relative to the amount of resources that matters.

But then, they seemingly choose to overlook progress in science and technology. What we have accomplished so far … and where we might be able to make more progress in the future.

It’s always amazed me how religious people place as much faith in man’s technology as in God.

But, the progress in “computers” has been astounding … silicon technology … metallurgy … distributed processing. Some government officials are touting networking … but networking is ten years old. Now it’s “cloud”. The academics are decades behind knowing what is really going on out there.

It’s very resource and energy intensive.

And we have incredible luddites spreading panic where-ever possible.

Ahhh…more “us vs. them.” It’s always great to point out those who are radicals, because it allows one to feel good about themselves and throw them out whenever they need to support their cause. In the meantime, there are plenty out there that take a more level-headed approach.

But at some point, you are going to have to realize that the professors are plainly … engaging in wholesale distortions.

Any thinking person can form their own opinions.

 

[wynnejj]

Quite frankly, there is nothing natural about the lifestyle of modern man. One will argue that the use of condoms is unnatural, but yet don’t say the same thing about flying a jet to their next vacation or using an iPad. One can’t randomly select what is unnatural to support their argument and ignore the rest. It’s all interconnected.

In a way your analysis seems to corroborate my point. When one draws parallels of nature in the context of population control, the common understanding is to look at the natural world apart from man and try to draw parallels for man’s understanding. This framework simply doesn’t work. “Unnatural” man can annihilate the world at the flick of a nuclear launch switch. Man is a Joker, a wild card, in the natural animal population deck of cards. If one wants to argue about natural populations in any meaningful way, and draw parallels of natural population control for the benefit of man’s understanding, one must remove the Joker from the analysis. Else, one is not arguing about “natural” population control as commonly understood, but an “artificial” population control “gamed system” of arguments.

 

[Warrior1979]

In a way your analysis seems to corroborate my point. When one draws parallels of nature in the context of population control, the common understanding is to look at the natural world apart from man and try to draw parallels for man’s understanding. This framework simply doesn’t work.

Examples of man living in his natural state do exist even in today’s day and age, though they are limited in number. So examples without “the Joker” do exist. Their numbers are generally small, limited by the resources in their environment, as expected.

 

[wynnejj]

Examples of man living in his natural state do exist even in today’s day and age, though they are limited in number. So examples without “the Joker” do exist. Their numbers are generally small, limited by the resources in their environment, as expected.

I concede that point if I don’t amend the statement to “apart from modern man”. For example, I think there may be much to learn from Easter Island.

I think that we may be picking away at the fringes of the central question of the opening post:
“Does the world have to worry about limiting our population due to finite resources?”.

The answers seem to come in the following forms:

1. The second coming of Jesus will make all concerns about population control a non-issue. He will come before our world resources run out.
2. God will provide the answers with man and his science as the instrument. We do not have to resort to limiting our families. Don’t worry. God will provide the technological advances in society when we need it.
3. God expects us to limit our families by remaining celibate if one does not have the wherewithal to support a family or, use partial abstinence within the confines of marriage through NFP during periods of privation.
4. God expects us to use good sense through barrier contraception acceptable within the confines of marriage, without resorting to abortifacients or abortions or same-sex partnerships.
5. God expects us to use good sense through contraception including ABC and early abortions before the human being develops brain and pain centers.
6. Do your personal best.

Personally, I go along with #1 and #2.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Still … STILL …

.....    nobody is anticipating that material progress will be made.

No new innovations.

No improvements.

But there ARE innovations … and there ARE improvements … ALL THE TIME.

But the “theoreticians” are unwilling to believe that progress is possible.

The theoreticians are unable to visualize any kind of innovation.

THAT is the problem.

 

[Warrior1979]

“Does the world have to worry about limiting our population due to finite resources?”.

I look at it this way. We can act responsibly, or we can let nature take its course. I prefer the former, because the latter is disastrous.

 

[Warrior1979]

Still … STILL …

.....    nobody is anticipating that material progress will be made.

No new innovations.

No improvements.

But there ARE innovations … and there ARE improvements … ALL THE TIME.

But the “theoreticians” are unwilling to believe that progress is possible.

The theoreticians are unable to visualize any kind of innovation.

THAT is the problem.

The thing about the general public is that they really don’t understand the issues. They are simply fed the one side of side; they hear the good and never the bad.

Progress has been, and will continue, to occur. The problem is that the general public doesn’t understand the down side of the progress. Instead, they claim they are naysayers…which is easy to do when the person accusing is ill informed.

Take a well known example: electric cars. It is claimed that if we made all cars electric, we wouldn’t need to depend on oil. The problem: Where does the electricity come from? The answer: mainly fossil fuels. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science knows that at each stage of energy conversion a significant amount of energy is lost (basic thermodynamic principles). So if the source of electric is fossil fuels, electric cars requirement more fossil fuel resources and result in higher pollution levels than a gas powered vehicle.

One could argue replacing the fossil fuel with solar energy. Well, you’ll never here anyone discuss the cost associated with producing the fossil fuel. Start calculating the cost of obtaining those materials, including energy cost in mining, the environmental damage, the production of raw materials into a usable form, transportation of the materials, etc., and you’ll see that it’s not so cost effective after all. That’s without consideration of the availability of materials.