What population?

In reply to NOT A TA :

That is the culture that you get when you can expect half the kids to die of disease before they grow up, and you need the other half to support you when you can't support yourself anymore, because what social safety net?  Having large families is a long term personal security strategy.

This is most of why, as societies get more wealthy and incorporate more safety nets, population growth slows or stops/goes negative.  The rest is because there just isn't TIME to raise kids when you're gung ho in a career.

At about the same time The Population Bomb was published, biologists were working on the theory of R and K selected species. There's a decent short explanation here. These days, it's not considered entirely accurate, but it's a decent starting point and first approximation for a lot of things. The short version is that small creatures that breed like rabbits (rabbits being a literal example) tend to have the population grow exponentailly until something goes wrong and you get a mass die-off, after which the cycle repeats. They're called "r selected".

But larger creatures that have smaller numbers of offspring (even a large human family would be about one litter for something like a mouse) tend to have a growth pattern that starts looking like an exponential growth curve at first, but then levels off at a stable carrying capacity. They're called "K selected".

Humans fit almost all the traits of K selection - large compared to most animals, small number of offspring per birth, children receive a lot of care from their parents, etc. And the human growth curve is leveling off much like the above curve. The Malthusians only had the early portion of the growth curve to look at and thought it would continue on until it crashed - but we're now seeing it level out.

Knurled. said:

Dr. Hess said:

"Scientists" have been predicting that the earth can't support the current level of population for at least the last 200 years.  Rich people like Bill Gates want to see a population around a billion, I think, or less.  They don't mention how they want to go from 10  billion to 1 billion, but we can assume that they are not planning on being one of the 9.

We have only been able to support population increases through great strides in farming techniques and technology.

 

You're not going to be able to feed 2019 population with 1919 agricultural tech. Or 1969 tech, for that matter.  (We're not really supporting 2019 population all that well, either, although there is visible room for improvement that we are not taking yet because it is not hurting us relatively well-off people yet)

 

We wouldn't be able to support 8 billion without our GMOs and factory farming techniques and pesticides from Hell.

It would be interesting to see, with our current technology, how many more hundreds of millions we could feed. 

There is an enormous amount of food waste in industrialized nations, before you even get to government enforced price controls. Not growing, powdered milk that sits in warehouses, etc. 

In reply to z31maniac :

That is what I mean, yes.  Food waste is absurd.

And they are starting to use North American farming practices in South America.  Brazil is going to be a huge ag exporter in the coming years.  Not so good for US farmers though.

What is interesting to note is that if some disease killed off a quarter of the world's population, it would take us back to the 70s.  Not like how the world population was 1-2 billion for a century or two...

Robbie said:

If you guys wanna get really weird I think the next impact "evolution" on the planet will be the merging of computers and humans, to form essentially a new life form that is neither human or computer. 

As with all evolutions, there might be competition between the new species and the existing species, or there might not, depends on if they need the same resources to survive. So, let's make sure that the AI bots don't need air, water, shelter, and energy.

This very well could be the next technology based correction. If/when the tech exists to merge oneself with a computer, thereby making a new "species" who do you think will get to take advantage? Of course it will be the rich. You think there is a gap between the rich and poor now, wait until the rich are super intelligent beings made possible by their money and connections. 

There's a lot of "doom and gloom" thinking going on in this thread.

My only meaningful contribution here is attest to the fact that children are a blessing.

In reply to Indy-Guy :

One is a blessing.  A billion is a plague.

That’s what has contributed to getting us where we are today.  Nobody is willing to step forward at a global level and tell people to just have 1 or 2 “blessings”.  (Except China and the law of unintended consequences has bitten them squarely on the collective keister)

Indy-Guy said:

There's a lot of "doom and gloom" thinking going on in this thread.

 

My only meaningful contribution here is attest to the fact that children are a blessing when they are someone elses.

FTFY

I've thought about this a few times myself, usually when someone I know is talking about having kid 6 or 7. I'm not sure what the event will be but I expect something big too happen. I also have several friends who are happy with one or zero children so maybe there is some balance starting too happen. 

z31maniac said:

Indy-Guy said:

There's a lot of "doom and gloom" thinking going on in this thread.

 

My only meaningful contribution here is attest to the fact that children are a blessing when they are someone elses, and they stay away from me.

FTFY

 

FTFY

dropstep said:

I've thought about this a few times myself, usually when someone I know is talking about having kid 6 or 7. I'm not sure what the event will be but I expect something big too happen. I also have several friends who are happy with one or zero children so maybe there is some balance starting too happen. 

I know too many people who have large families to feel good about having children myself.  It seems selfish, somehow.  OTOH, I've had people tell me to my face that I was being selfish for not having children.  So no matter what you do, someone will be offended, so do what thou wilt.

I used to joke that I'd adopt a college student when I got older.  That was back when a degree at a good school would run you only $100k or so...

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

Some humans act like r’s and some like K’s. If we all were K’s I’m not sure we’d be having this discussion because there wouldn’t be over 7 billion humans. 

The population group that is most at risk in most of these hypothetical scenarios is also the population group that is responsible for all of the current population growth. No real point, just an observation.

Knurled. said:

dropstep said:

I've thought about this a few times myself, usually when someone I know is talking about having kid 6 or 7. I'm not sure what the event will be but I expect something big too happen. I also have several friends who are happy with one or zero children so maybe there is some balance starting too happen. 

I know too many people who have large families to feel good about having children myself.  It seems selfish, somehow.  OTOH, I've had people tell me to my face that I was being selfish for not having children.  So no matter what you do, someone will be offended, so do what thou wilt.

 

I used to joke that I'd adopt a college student when I got older.  That was back when a degree at a good school would run you only $100k or so...

The wife and I are what was known in the 80's as DINKs. We have plenty of money to do fun stuff without having to kill ourselves at high-stress paper pushing jobs that would pay the equivalent with kids in tow.

She has college interns that come through her program every summer and we've housed, fed and become friends with many of them. They are the best kind of adoptees...they are relatively easy to please, give back more than they take, hard-working, dedicated, and we're always happy to give personal and professional recommendations...several of whom work in the industry now.

I'd much rather give academically successful adults a good start in their professional life than take on the task of molding a human being that can be influenced, warped and poisoned by the society you're preparing them for. At least you know these have already walked that minefield...

I have thought for some time that there will be a population collapse due to disease.  Some species are stable, some under go boom and bust cycles. We just tend to think that we're immune from the laws of nature.

For example, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919 doesn't seem possible today, but we just haven't had as virulent an influenza outbreak since then.

From the CDC website:

It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.

A big reason for the number of deaths is that, just like with the SARS respiratory infections of a few years ago, a young, health adult was most at risk of death.  What killed you was your own immune response to the virus, and young, healthy adults would have the strongest immune response. People died within a few hours of showing their first symptoms.

We're also seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. I believe we're not far from going back to the time where you could die from a minor scratch. It's already happening, just in isolated cases.

From the CDC: Necrotizing fasciitis

This is primarily attributed to the group A strep bacteria, but here in FL we've had multiple cases caused by a bacteria that lives in warm water, vibrio vulnificus. 

Vibrio is a common pathogen in food poisoning from seafood, but these cases are entirely different. I think I recall reading about a single case of necrotizing faciitis from vibrio in someone that hadn't been around salt water, which reminds me of the first MRSA case that occurred outside of a hospital (MRSA is common now).

Well, a sneaky asteroid could take a bit of a bite.

I think there is a general underestimation of humans tendency to adapt and create technological solutions in many of these scenarios. Of course it might be the technology that starts coming up with the solutions eventually.

We can house the entire population of the earth in an area the size of the original 13 states, if the city is built with the density of a modern Japanese city. (This stat might be a bit outdated, but add North Carolina and call it even)

Sounds like hell to me, but that leaves a hell of a lot of room for agriculture. 

Not particularly worried about it.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

You’re missing the point by about a hundred miles.   It isn’t a question of physical overcrowding, obviously that isn’t the problem.   

It’s resources.  Food, water, energy, materials for our consumption in all things and the ability of the planet to absorb our emissions of all things.   The world is a very finite ecosystem and it’s carrying capacity for humans was blown past years ago.  We’re on borrowed time and the question is how dramatic will the correction be.   

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

It's not as simple as having enough land area for agriculture, it has to be the right land. It's no coincidence that the places where it's easiest to grow crops are also the places where it's easiest for humans to live, so there's a competition for arable land. So either the cost of farming goes up as we try to convert wastelands into arable ground, or we make people live in harsh locations like mountains, swamps, or deserts and use the fertile ground for agriculture.

Only 20% of the land on this planet is currently suitable for agriculture, and that's shrinking by about 100k sq km every year. An old timer I used to work with was fond of saying "they make more people every day, but they aren't making any more land." I see the logic behind that thought more and more.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

You’re missing the point by about a hundred miles.   It isn’t a question of physical overcrowding, obviously that isn’t the problem.   

It’s resources.  Food, water, energy, materials for our consumption in all things and the ability of the planet to absorb our emissions of all things.   The world is a very finite ecosystem and it’s carrying capacity for humans was blown past years ago.  We’re on borrowed time and the question is how dramatic will the correction be.   

I like how this post was +numbers before and multiple people -'d it back down to zero.

Probably the same people who lose their jobs and live on credit and think everything is fine now, so why change? 

Or that guy from that thread a while back, the junkie diabetic who was in risk of losing his foot to infection, but kept living in denial and getting combative with people who told him to change his lifestyle or he'd lose his foot, and he kept up with the attitude of "ain't been a problem before, ain't gonna be a problem in the future", and last I heard he was an amputee with a leaky colostomy bag babbling angrily at people on the street.

Meh. I’m not a particularly fatalistic person. I don’t really think anything radical will “correct” the population. Sure, things are changing and there will continue to be challenges.  But I just don’t see anything taking out, say, even 5% of the world population  

The only real doomsday scenario is a planet-denting asteroid, and the odds against that are astronomical, if you’ll pardon the pun. 

All I can really add to this is something my college geology professor said:  When mother earth is done with us, she'll kill us.

Feel free to replace "mother earth" with whatever deity, calamity, or belief you wish.

My big gripe is what I call artificialization of material.  We produce more corn than we can possibly consume, but in an effort to maintain the noble pursuit of farmers' jobs, the government buys the surplus and lets it rot somewhere.  As a former dairy/corn/chicken farmer, I take some serious offense to the fact that there are billion-dollar corn and soybean farms supported by my tax dollars, but thousands of PA dairy farms are selling off cattle for hamburger because it costs more to produce milk than you get when you sell it.  I think the current figures are about a 10-cent loss per gallon.  Dairy farming in PA (and likely other places) is not only a non-profiting job, you pay to make milk.

Then I get even gripier (that's a real word) when everything in our economy has become globalized.  I'm all for global trade, but we have made this odd structure where it is easiest and cheapest to (for instance) mine nickel in Canada, ship it to India for refining, then send it to China or Japan where it is plated onto circuit boards, then it's shipped to Korea where Hyundai puts it in a car ECM, then the car gets shipped to Argentina for sale.

Then I get gripiest (another real word) when we can't just eat food.  We don't eat a green bean or a wild Salmon filet or a fresh local sausage.  We eat canned beans with six ingredients on the label, a farm-raised, color-injected, inbred salmon, and a hot dog made from lips and buttholes that is more Nitrites and preservatives than it is meat.

We have engineered our food to the point where it isn't really food anymore.  I think it likely contributes to illness, disease, and death.  I'm not saying you'll die if you eat a Ballpark frank, but a lifetime of that stuff could certainly alter the population's average lifespan.

I think what I'm really saying is (to piggyback on the OP's 50% vs 95%) I think THAT is the big killer if we lose a significant part of our population.  I think people can live without infrastructure easier than they can live without access to hot dogs, canned food, and farmed meats.  As for me, I have a .308 and a farm with deer, 5 acres ready to plant, and a fire pit to cook.  Bring on the apocalypse.

Wasn’t there a news story last year about some sort of DoD study that predicted US population dropping to 65 million by 2025? IIRC, it didn’t provide the basis for that, just assumed a whole bunch of us would stop breathing by then for some reason. 

In reply to T.J. :

That appears to have been something from a conspiracy website referencing chemtrails.

Here is some light reading by the CIA however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/Demo_Trends_For_Web.pdf

T.J. said:

Wasn’t there a news story last year about some sort of DoD study that predicted US population dropping to 65 million by 2025? IIRC, it didn’t provide the basis for that, just assumed a whole bunch of us would stop breathing by then for some reason. 

Yeah I'm not seeing how roughly 275 million people are magically not going to be here in 6 years