Slashdot Mirror


Have We Reached Maximum Sustainable Population Size?

Hugh Pickens writes "Pulitzer prize winning writer Thomas Friedman writes that in few years we may be looking back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? 'We're currently caught in two loops,' writes Friedman. 'One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability.' According to the Global Footprint Network we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth's resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished, so we are eating into the future. Right now, global growth is using about 1.5 Earths. 'Having only one planet makes this a rather significant problem,' says Paul Gilding. 'We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we're not stupid.'"

37 of 1,070 comments (clear)

  1. Answer: by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    1. Re:Answer: by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes! It's right there in the summary.. We need a new economic model... Resources are more than abundant.. Mismanagement and desire for control is the problem..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Answer: by fatphil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need more contraception.

      We need to recognise that people like Mother Theresa and the Pope are the cause of more suffering in the world, through encouraging people to breed offspring who can't be fed properly, than either Uncle Joe or Uncle Mao.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    3. Re:Answer: by Targon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is simple, stop trying to save the starving people of other nations that can't possibly hope to sustain their CURRENT populations, and they will either survive as their population goes down, or they will die off and we won't be worried about people starving in those nations. If a nation has nothing to trade for the help it needs, then why TRY to sustain the people there? Obviously, responding to things like earthquakes and volcanoes is an area where help makes sense, but for too long, we have watched governments that already run at a deficit spend money that they don't have.

    4. Re:Answer: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reiterate: No.

      1% of the population controls, demands, consumes and excessively wastes better than 85% of the available resources on Earth.

      I assure you, they do not do so through a system that rewards their excessive virtue or merit.

      The planet could sustain many times it's current population with a better equity in distribution. This doesn't mean lowering the status on middle-classes in the developed world, but toppling the capstone of this pyramid.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:Answer: by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need."

      I think the Communists tried a version of this...after the murdered a few hundred million so the books balanced better.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Answer: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Matt Taibbi ripped Friedman at least a dozen new arseholes. I can't believe he dared to show his name in print, ever again.

      It goes to show ya. The stupid think they're geniuses - especially when they carry water for the Neo-Lib, Global Opressor class.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Answer: by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, in a harsh sense, we need to make it economically insensible to continue having babies and eating food. To some degree, that will happen as things get worse.

      --
      It's always confirmation bias!
    8. Re:Answer: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, the prices are rising not because of TF's "warming" and "scarcity" but because of US currency devaluation (QE2) and commodity speculations - where Goldman parks billions after real estate failures.

      But this cheerleader for the trans-national elite can't exactly blast the billionaire-boys-club that he's paid to carry water for, can he?

      NYT and WaPo - like Pravda and Izvestia in the 70's. On to glorious victory in Afghanistan!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:Answer: by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would strongly suggest visiting africa. They have plenty of resources to trade (gold, platinum, etc, etc), but the people are exploited by 1st world governments.

      I work for an international mining company. In one evening (whilst visiting a mine in Zambia) I personally drank the equivalent in beer of almost 1 year worth of wages for a local laborer, who does just as much physical labor as a typical miner in a first world country, who is taking home anywhere between $80k and $150k per year for his efforts.

      That is criminal - but it is also reality for the local people living there. The disparity in wages between different countries for what is essentially the same work can not continue indefinitely.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    10. Re:Answer: by Nursie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think the democrats in the US are anywhere near socialist then you have problems...

      They are less right wing than the other lot, but not by much, they just have slightly different special interests pulling the strings.

    11. Re:Answer: by Archtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree with you, but I don't think this was what noted idiot, elite toady and NYT columnist (redundant, I know) Thomas Friedman had in mind. (Honestly, WTF? Why is that jackass' garbled, moronic gibberish showing up on Slashdot?)

      Since you are much smarter and better educated than Friedman, you will of course realize that a man may be a "noted idiot, elite toady and NYT columnist" and still be correct in some of his opinions. Perhaps it is sufficient reason for his " garbled, moronic gibberish" to show up on Slashdot that it reveals your own weakness - apparently you believe that levelling a stream of personal abuse at the speaker renders his views self-evidently wrong.

      That turns out not to be the case.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  2. It's a little early... by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a little early to include the tornadoes as part of a discussion on global climate change. Just like one hot summer doesn't prove it and one cold winter doesn't disprove it (even ignoring the false notion that global climate change != getting warmer everywhere all the time) we'd need to see evidence of increased storm activity for multiple years in close succession before we could draw any conclusions. In general i'm a "believer" in global climate change, but i'm not in favor of using incorrect data to try and prop up the idea.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:It's a little early... by WoollyMittens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Climate change wasn't mentioned at all. Maybe the author meant that there's more people living in tornado prone areas.

  3. Of course we're stupid by dargaud · · Score: 5, Insightful
    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  4. Monetary inflation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is the cause of the higher prices.

  5. lots of nonsense by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . 'One is that more population growth and more global warming together are pushing up food prices; rising food prices cause political instability in the Middle East, which leads to higher oil prices, which leads to higher food prices, which leads to more instability.'

    - well that's plenty of nonsense.

    Prices today are pushed up by artificial demand, created by the inflated currencies of the world. US Fed is printing like a maniac, buying up its own debt and is giving the US dollars to all the banks (and likely central banks) around the world, so that they would also buy US debt - this is an attempt to trick the bond market into believing there is an actual demand for US bonds, but all of this is designed to prolong the day of reckoning - when the US bonds are no longer bought and US dollar plunges ahead of all currencies and US is in hyper inflation, because Fed will likely buy out all the debt and default that way, rather than let the market restructure US debt and rebuild the economy.

    The prices for food and energy around the world are going up as US is creating inflation around the world, but for now US is still shielding itself from the ultimate catastrophe - currency crisis, but who knows how much longer it can do this? Of-course the oil production will continue declining, as OPEC cannot actually bring more and more production on line, even though it pretends to say that it can, but it can't.

    Cartels do not work, because the members have only incentives to cheat. They agree on quotas, and then they produce as much as they can, since they see high prices (even though in reality, the oil and gas are lowest price ever in history if counted in gold.)

    As to the population size - the only problem with population size today, is that the governments of the world are distorting the free market and not letting the businesses provide everything the growing populations need in real competitive market. There are a small number of largest companies, that work with government to make sure they keep their monopolies, but of-course monopolies have about as much incentive to maximize their efficiency and compete on price/quality, as any government, which means zilch.

    Do not lose the sight of what is really going on: globally the world's central banks are engaged in destruction of currencies in order to maintain the US currency high relative to their own, since there is likely political and personal profit in it for them. This is causing the massive inflation and then prices rise around the world, only so that they stay relatively stable in USA. Do not be fooled by the so called economists, that the government calls 'main stream' and who work for the governments - they are no different than the shamans and witch doctors of yesteryear, who also worked for their kings.

    As to the global warming, etc. - how about getting government hands off the energy policy of the world, allowing the businesses to compete on best ways to provide energy, be it nuclear or whatever it is? And how about getting rid of the subsidies to the auto-industries via government sponsored infrastructure, which create the energy policy that we are observing around the world today, complete with wars and pollution?

    I am sure this opinion will be highly popular on this site.

    Good night.

    1. Re:lots of nonsense by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who gives a flying fuck what the purchasing power of [arbitrary currency unit] is? What matters is how much a typical person can buy with a day's wage. That is a hell of a lot higher today than it was in the 19th century.

  6. Friedman is an idiot by MetricT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was forced to read "The Earth is Round" as part of my MBA. When it comes to amazing him, the bar is set pretty low. He could probably write a column on how the sun rises in the east

    "Empire of Debt" has a delicious and well-deserved excoriation of Friedman. If it wasn't such a great book in and of itself, it would be worth reading just for that.

  7. No by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 1971, Paul Ehrlich predicted a maximum sustainable world population of 1.2 billion people. By 1994 Ehrlich raised his estimate to 2 billion saying, "the present population of 5.5 billion [..] has clearly exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it." Two decades later we're closing in on 7 billion souls the overwhelming majority of which are not expected to starve to death or otherwise suffer a Malthusian catastrophe.

    Overpopulation alarmism has become trite and hackneyed.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:No by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, the problem with that attitude is that just because a bunch of people cried wolf before you doesn't make you wrong.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:No by Kittenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Overpopulation alarmism has become trite and hackneyed.

      Yeah, but it sells papers.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:No by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how much of that population is fed by oil?
      The "Green Revolution" was a fossil fuel revolution. Take away the fossil fuel and you're back to the 1-2 billion baseline.

    4. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Over population is definitely something that we need to be concerned with. But in practice that problem tends to take care of itself when the population gets adequate, food, education and support in old age. Few people genuinely want to have more than 3 kids, the number is small enough that if a few people choose to have more it's probably not even worth worrying about.

      The bigger issue is in parts of the world where parents have to depend upon their children to care for them in old age. Parents have no way of knowing how many children will survive to adulthood and as such tend to have a lot more children in order to make sure that they're cared for. These kids then tend to make a similar choice and over time the population just keeps on growing.

      But, rather than disasters, the bigger thing we need to be concerned with is how much of the planet's surface we're dedicating to agriculture and living space. We definitely could grow the population quite a bit and still be able to sustain ourselves, it's just the cost would be extraordinary and we'd have to give up our wild spaces.

    5. Re:No by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with your argument, is that all of the advanced unnecessary accessories are now comparatively cheap, whereas the basic necessities of life are increasing in cost dramatically.

      A standard size house block of land 50km away from the nearest cbd here costs approximately $300k-400k AUD (about $330k-440k USD) _without_ even a house on it.

      You are looking at closer to a million dollars simply for a typical house.

      Food is still relatively inexpensive if you actually make your own. No one in the 60/70's bought large quantites of pre-made food and ate out for 3 meals a day of fast food.

      The costs of the land to grow your own food costs far more than the produce you would create. If you mean going to the shopping centre and getting ingredients, fast food can work out cheaper.. that is how expensive normal food is these days. It only makes sense to go normal food shopping if you have 3+ people and buy in bulk to create big meals.

      What most people take for granted today as a mediocre lifestyle is beyond what even the wealthy had access to in the 60's and 70's

      Depends on what you want from life, financial independence, owning your own home, not having food bills eat most of your income? Something many now cannot achieve which was easily doable back then.

      Basically, all the luxuries are now cheap, and all the basic necessities of life are now expensive, nice work there.

    6. Re:No by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Evidence for this claim? My father worked to help make the green revolution happen in India and Southeast Asia, and he had absolutely nothing to do with oil (nor did the work done by e.g. Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller foundation, US AID, and so on have anything to do with oil). The bulk of the effort associated with the green revolution was the development of far better crop hybrids -- e.g. advanced rice hybrids developed in Louisiana -- with much higher yields and resistances, modern crop rotation methodologies, the development of a sustainable economic model from the farmer to the table, and much more. "Oil" played a (relatively minor) role in only two ways that I can think of or remember -- replacing bullock carts to some extent with e.g. trucks and rail for transporting crops to more distant locations, and as one of many sources of energy used to make fertilizers. The predominant fuels used by the farmers he worked with before, after, and during the revolution were dried cow dung and charcoal.

      As a consequence of the green revolution and education and a very energetic population, fossil fuel consumption in India has steadily risen along with the gross domestic product as it has moved towards being a modern society, but oil had almost nothing to do with the revolution per se and has nothing at all to do with the "1-2 billion baseline". At least as far as I know (and I probably know a lot more than most people, having lived in India and watched the green revolution happen). If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enlighten me -- with references.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    7. Re:No by F34nor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think of it this way....

      Imagine a test tube filled with sugar and water. It represents all the resources and space on earth. Or just think of the earth, it works either way.

      Now place one bacteria in the test tube. For the sake of the though experiment we will say that the bacteria doubles every minute and at 60 minutes the test tube will be full of bacteria and all space and resources are exhausted. Here's the question.... at how many minutes is the tube 1/2 full? Wait... wait... if you thought 30 minutes you're not smart enough to be involved in any type of conversation relating to math. The answer is 59. 1/2 full at 59 minutes. So how many bacteria look around a 1/16 full and realize that they are well and truly fucked? Not you obviously. Even if we invent a quantum earth duplicator and make 3 more earths, at 61 the second earth is exhausted and at 62 all four are. Your basic math illiteracy is the real reason you think that we are all ok.

      The depth of your wrongness is staggering. Math is not racist.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DF-QA2rkpBSY&ei=IC3wTb3oO4GisAO239yuDg&usg=AFQjCNHmFV-da9Oy6becHtac7KffjWsTsQ&sig2=hocy8suakk6IR0w5233hFg

    8. Re:No by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We shouldn't listen OR not listen to anyone based on the history of other people's failed claims. We should judge claims based on their merit/evidence.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  8. Re:We keep saying this... by fatphil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's an empty argument. The earth wasn't supposed to do anything.
    Spin, perhaps, but even that's debatable.

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  9. Re:Consumption per person is more relevant by Charcharodon · · Score: 1, Insightful
    A US citizen is responsible for 10 to 20 times more resource and energy consumption than a Chinese or Indian citizen, for example.

    A US citizen is also usually responsible for 10 to 20 times more resource and energy production than a Chinese or Indian citizen. If they want more resources and energy all they have to do is produce them.

  10. Sigh by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Overpopulation alarmism has become trite and hackneyed.

    Yes, you are correct. We should continue on our present course without considering the consequences. We will never run out of anything.

    I personally think that unless some steps are taken to bring world population growth to zero fairly quickly that there are going to be some truly horrible wars in fifty to one hundred years. First world countries will be very reluctant to give up all their modern amenities, and developing countries will be unwilling to curb their population growth to keep competition for resources to a minimum. At some point, there are going to be some very serious shortages, and the wars that result will not be conducted around the traditional goal of military conquest for resources, but rather the goal of making the world population much smaller in a very short time. I certainlly hope that doesn't happen, but there are enough despotic people in power around the world that I think it might.

    The fact is that there are not infinite resources. If there are too many people using those resources, you will run out. The problem is that when this happens, it will basically be like an inflection point on a graph, where change will happen very quickly.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Sigh by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I personally think that unless some steps are taken to bring world population growth to zero fairly quickly that there are going to be some truly horrible wars in fifty to one hundred years.

      You mean sort of like the truly horrible wars of the twentieth century, the nineteenth century, the eighteenth century, the seventeenth century, the... (iterate back to where human ancestors were mostly peaceable primates with 24 chromosomes instead of 23).

      Why do you think that world population growth has anything to do with having truly horrible wars? We've done just fine killing one another when the world's population was far smaller, and if anything we are continuing some forty of the most peaceful years the world has ever known combined with the highest population the world has ever known.

      Besides, there is only one "fundamental" scarcity -- energy. Bite the bullet, build massive solar energy facilities worldwide and/or invent sustainable thermonuclear fusion generators, make energy cheap and plentiful "forever", and we can address all the other scarcities. The catch will be to manage this before we kill one another off not because of scarcity or overpopulation per se, but because of human lust for political power, wealth, reproductive success, and control.

      Not that I really disagree. If, for example, the Holocene cranks to its inevitable end starting tomorrow, the solar minimum that appears to be starting turns out to be a grand minimum, a couple of big volcano blow to give the next ice age a healthy head start, and we have a "Year without a summer" such as the one that occurred last in 1816, it would very likely kill a billion or more people. Midsummer frost in the world's breadbaskets would bring about starvation on a truly unprecedented scale, and the very northerly our southerly countries that have been temperate and prosperous during the Holocene would be the ones begging from or warring with their equatorial neighbors as the glaciers once again begin their slow descent across Siberia, Canada, China, and northern Europe.

      The advent of thermonuclear fusion could have a very similar effect as it completely breaks the economies of all of the oil and coal producing countries and companies overnight.

      See? We don't really have to wait! We could have a truly horrible war right now!

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:Sigh by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With enough cheap energy you can economically desalinate the ocean and hydroponically grow as much food as you like disconnected from the usual limitations of dirt farming in an uncertain climate. It isn't that there aren't other scarcities -- it is that cheap energy is the key to making them not scarce.

      If we turned 5% of the Sahara desert into solar collector, we could turn the other 95% into one enormous farm and effectively terraform it so that it wasn't desert any more. The Sahara is quite large, has a year-round growing season and lots of sun -- as a farm supplied with unlimited water it could probable feed the entire world all by itself. Ditto the Australian Outback, ditto the US southwest, ditto much of central and western India (away from the major rivers, where farming is tied to the monsoon). Energy is water, energy is food, energy is recycling of garbage, energy is production, energy is transportation. Drop the cost of power to $0.01 per KW-hour, worldwide, define it at this price (effectively fixing a global currency not subject to manipulation) and stand back and watch the world explode (in a good way).

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  11. Directed to the countries who do have the problem by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I noticed that this website is in English, German, Spanish, French, and Italian--meaning it is mostly directed to the west. The fact that it doesn't even have Mandarin or Cantonese despite China's 1.3 Billion tells you that he is more interested in extracting money from guilt-laden westerners than solving any problems. French! Less than 2% of the earth speak French as their native language. Heck, more people speak Bengali or Telugu or even Marathi than the entire population of France!

    Most of the western countries are stable or have declining populations. The United States is an exception, however much of that is due to immigration. Yet you have India with 1.2 Billion and growing, Indonesia with 237 million and growing, Nigeria with 158 million and growing, Bangladesh with 150 million and growing---and the site is dedicated to telling Westerners why it is all their fault. Solving the real problem, 3rd world population growth, isn't going to get done by telling Westerners to reduce their "footprint".

  12. Re:We keep saying this... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with your idea is that "Green Revolution" agriculture is harmful to the soil. Because it involves machinery and pesticides it creates dead soil on top of hardpan. The land will no longer produce vegetables after years of monocropping.

    Indeed. One only has to look at the devastation of the American Midwest, unable to produce any crops after decades of mechanized farming...

    Wait, no. The Midwest produces more crops today then it ever did. Something's wrong here...

  13. Re:If we all live like Thomas Friedman, sure by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Thomas Friedman wants to talk about sustainability, thats great, then he should practice what he preaches. He doesn't, and he and his wife made money off one of the worst drivers of urban sprawl, large lot shopping centers.

    Seriously? Your doctor can't warn you about the dangerous and addictive habit of smoking unless he has excellent will power himself?

    Sorry, but dismissing an argument with the wave of your hand, because you don't personally like the messenger really is bullshit.

    I'm not defending his lifestyle --I'd be first to agree that he's being a hypocrite and such excess is deplorable when most people are struggling just to survive, but that's a criticism of the MAN, not his arguments.

    --
    Ask me about my sig!
  14. Simply a Malthusian ... nothing to see here by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other words, it's the same discussion we have had in the 1950's, and the 1900's, and the 1830's, 1870's, and ...

    There really isn't anything to add here. Really.

    The short version : This specific prediction has been made as often as the end of the world predictions. Needless to say, most dates of "civilizational collapse" have passed, and nobody noticed. Every time something appears to go wrong, whether it's the real fucking great depression (1870, just not felt that hard in America because America played the role China plays today), WWI, the spanish flu, the great depression, WWII, the conflict with Japan, the oil crisis, the various crisises in the 80's, 90's and even the 2000's (how do you even call those ? The 00's ?) there is a new cohort of Malthusians that predict that "this time" it's really going to happen !

    Let's now all mention the corollaries : peak oil, peak grain, peak food, peak corn, peak water, peak God's goodwill (this was the original version : God's "good will" will only support about 800 million people, so we'll never exceed that population), peak cows, ... and, to some Global Warming is just another version of the Malthusian argument (given that we don't actually know very well what will happen with Global warming, there is something to be said for this : Global warming won't kill us even if we just let it happen, we'll have to move a few cities. You could say that's simply "stimulating the economy". Perhaps that's even true)