Population & Sustainability

[GarethKane]

I've been mulling on the population/sustainability question on my eco-living blog - mainly as I've just added an extra little one to the 6 billion peeps already here.

I'd be very interested in your views on this issue.

Cheers,

Gareth

[Johnny Electriglide]

http:www.worldometers.info/
6.63 Billion. Three major multi-disciplinary studies from 1972 to 1992, put the long term sustainable (interglacial epoch) at 1.5 to 2 billion for the planet. Studies from 1995 on, by myself and others, have shown an accelerating decrease in this level to .66 to .9 Billion now.
Several of my studies have shown the vertical drop at mid century. Recovery of the 1 to 5% survivors to the new sustainable level, as in past stimulated mammal population curves, will probably not hold true. The feedback loop of methane release from increasing CO2 is going at double and more of previous estimates, so the sustainable level may reach zero by 2100. Near the end of an E.L.E. caused by humans. Richard Leakey won. I had hoped for a speciation, with intelligent,strong humans surviving and splitting off from the rest who can not live sustainably.

[matthewtrigg]

Sustainable increases in population are one thing, but creating a sustainable environment for these people to live in is another. Especially considering how bad a job we are currently doing in balancing the needs of society and the environment.

It comes down to the simple issue that just because we can (ie; increase our population), doesn't mean we should.

At what point and by whose interpretation do we define the limits of such growth?

[90% by 2030]

My understanding is that populations are declining in the west, but still increasing in developing nations. When developing nations become educated and wealthy they will elect to have fewer children (i.e. farmers who need offspring to work in the fields and provide for them in their old age, will always have more children than engineers who will have to fund their offsprings further education!) and the population there will start to decline too. Still going rise though until we increase the wealth and education of the whole planet. To me, this is the only realistic way to reduce population over the longer term - therefore increasing the wealth and education on the planet, is the key to all our survivals. Don't know what the planet will peak at though....?

[Johnny Electriglide]

As I said, the problem is time. I know from 40 years in the field, that population will peak in the middle to late 2040s, briefly, at 8.2 to 8.5 billion, then die-off rapidly. People have used the error of not compensating for increasing death rates from pollution and crowding diseases, as well as local failures first, along with a lowering birth rate. The failure of the human niche and the biosphere in general, will be a cascading ecological "bubble" failure, and the curve "line" itself, is a "tube of probability". If you can dig it.
The type of stimulated mammalian population curve is a half bell, not a full bell curve. Using multiple disciplinary approach, and actual use, depletion, recharge and regeneration rates with absorption rates for various pollution forms gives me the tube of probability in determining the future.
Certainly my geology and flying knowledge and abilities have helped with a broader view in eco-biology and my long experience the nature of people, and the Earth's human population tripling just in my lifetime. <rockon>

[Cerberus]

Hi,

It seems quite strange to me that this kind of thing is not being talked about in the news all the time. Why is that?

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

Hi,

It seems quite strange to me that this kind of thing is not being talked about in the news all the time. Why is that?

Its not personal enough. Until something actual effect a person personally (and by that I include emotionally) people generally are not interested. The thought of x Gppl dieing (probably in a land far away) some time in the distant future doesn’t really get personal for most people to be bothered.

As for a sustainable society, I think a sustainable population is a necessary condition. I hope we can achieve that through education and environmental design. However, note that such a population stabilisation will present problems for a capitalist system that requires growth.

[Cerberus]

Isenhand,

Yes, that makes sense. For all our evolved thinking capabilities, we are still a very short-sighted species aren't we? Even when it concerns our own direct decendants. We have a long way to go, in such a short time, I am not convinced the human race is going to make it.

[Power Circle]

Congrats on the new addition,and I think there is still hope for us all!! We have the technology to drive unlimited mileage vehicles with zero emmissions and to power our houses with a car alternator! I am trying to tell the world about what I built! Check out www.myspace.com/powercircle Stop by ASAP!!!

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

Isenhand,

Yes, that makes sense. For all our evolved thinking capabilities, we are still a very short-sighted species aren't we? Even when it concerns our own direct decendants. We have a long way to go, in such a short time, I am not convinced the human race is going to make it.

Well, some good news then

You don’t need everyone on your side to change the world! Civilisation is a process where the majority are dragged along! You just need a few people to change society. One possible way to do that is actually demonstrate an alternative (which we are working on in NET).

If you can do that then I think the majority will just meander along to a new way of doing things.