Population

[Patrick]

"In short, forget it. It's not going to happen. We are going to have to find a way to feed 10B+ people or go through the kind of extinction that hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs went."

It's this kind of either-or, black and white thinking that gets you into trouble and is why so many dismiss the environmental movement out of hand.

The simple fact here is that any kind of collapse scenario is going to be made far worse if we do not take immediate steps to reduce consumption. Just because we don't have a perfect solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do what we can. It goes without saying that a managed descent would result in a lot less suffering for everyone in general than if we are to throw in the towel and just let things run their course.

Another thing comes to mind. Just because some countries choose to not adopt a one child per family act is no big deal. It would work like this: some countries would adopt a one child per family act and would sanely reduce their consumption. Other countries would continue business as usual and when food shortages develop people will die from riots, starvation, etc. Either way population is reduced to a stable level. In short, if we don't reduce our numbers voluntarily nature will do it for us. On a global level, it will be a combination of the two. People will be a lot more willing to accept a one child-per-family act once shortages and rationing become a daily reality. A one child per family act is not even necessary in many affluent countries which are actually experiencing a decline in population. Why is this? When people become educated and attain a certain level of prosperity and gain access to birth control, they use it. So another part of the solution is to raise the prosperity level of third world countries - don't ask me how we do that, though - that will have to be its own discussion.

[Johnny Electriglide]

The sustainability on a planetary level is very much affected by the long term depletions and pollution caused by humans. I know from the 1992 "Elephants in the Volkswagen" studies what the sustainable level was then at various standards of living. My 1995 studies showed that sustainability itself was going down in a sort of delayed mirror curve to the increasing population, now 6.7 billion. Basically the sustainability vector is going toward 0 humans with the accumulated long term pollution and depletion effects, probably in a hundred years. The crash will happen starting in the 2040s. The death rate then will be 800 million per year at its worst. It would take a death rate of 200 million per year with a one child per woman strictly enforced policy, and 90% reduction in GHG emissions, to prevent the crash and following extinction of humans and 87% of all species.
Any thinking that it can be done slower is fallacious. Humans ran out of time last century, and the time to reduce population and footprints easiest was on the first Earth Day.
I don't like it, but the chances for the human species(intelligent sector) to survive and thrive again, next time sustainably, are very slim. Much of the pollution such as plastics are up in the 50,000 year time frame to break down(nuclear pollution is still several hundred thousand years). The depleted aquifers are in the 6,000 year plus range, and the soils similar. The joker in the deck is the methane releases going self-sustaining and heating the oceans to release the methane hydrates at various levels there. If the Earth goes to Eocene Max conditions, then the scenario will be the ELE completion. If methane release is stopped by quickly lowering CO2 and increasing albedo with a supervolcano eruption (not due for 1500 years), then the chances for some humans to survive until the next interglacial epoch are better. The question then will be what kind of humans will they be, ones who understand ecology and sustainability, or sub-human morons whose numbers are only controlled by catastrophe?