Optimum Population Trust

[Not A Communist Shill]

These guys were in the news recently: apparently 1 Briton has the same cost on the Earth as 160 Ethiopians. It's all interesting stuff, anyway.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
[web:800fa754ca]http://www.optimumpopulation.org/[/web:800fa754ca]

[ragnar]

It's a myth that the Earth is "overpopulated". The fact of the matter is that the Earth is huge and humans are few.

A quick illustration:

Assume everyone on Earth packs up and moves to Baffin Island. Every man, woman and child from everywhere in the whole world.

Now, then, the whole world is totally empty of people except this island off the coast of Canada.

How crowded would that island become? The answer is that it would get less than twice the present population density of Singapore, i.e. less than half that of present day Monaco.

Just to illustrate the absurdity of this "overpopulation" nonsense.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffin_Island


Greetings, ragnar

[Jarno]

I wonder what they mean with overpopulation is a problem.

A) just being here on this planet is problem

B) all the recources that are used per human being is a problem.

[Animal]

It's a myth that the Earth is "overpopulated". The fact of the matter is that the Earth is huge and humans are few.

True as this may be in the geographic sense, we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us - not merely to give us standing space. Not to mention that vast portion of the earth's surface are virtually uninhabitable (71% is covered in water or ice, another 7% is desert).

[KSpin]

Overpopulation isn't just about living space.

It's about water, food, pollution (air, noise, water, soil) , resources such as iron/oil/uranium/tin/copper etc that we mine out of the ground and then, obviously, cannot replace.

And being able to sustain the world without making it worse because of your presence.

So stop talking bollocks, ragnar.

[Kristiina]

Overpopulation isn't just about living space.

It's about water, food, pollution (air, noise, water, soil) , resources such as iron/oil/uranium/tin/copper etc that we mine out of the ground and then, obviously, cannot replace.

And being able to sustain the world without making it worse because of your presence.

So stop talking bollocks, ragnar.

QFT

[Not A Communist Shill]

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release04Dec06.htm

The UK’s sustainable population based on current patterns of resource use is just over 17 million, less than a third of its actual population of 60 million*, according to new research from the Optimum Population Trust.

Using newly released ecological footprinting data**, the OPT puts the world’s sustainable population at below 4.5 billion, a third less than the actual figure of 6.6 billion.

Footprinting measures the demands of a population against the resources the Earth can renewably supply - the planet’s annual “biocapacity”. However, the new calculations are based on current lifestyles, which are highly energy- and resource-intensive and therefore ecologically wasteful. Projections which take account of the potential for greener lifestyles, and also of the need for poverty relief and economic growth in the developing world, produce different sustainable population figures.

For example, if the UK cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent, in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with the British Government’s emissions reduction target for 2050, it could support a larger population - 26 million people, according to the OPT.

If the whole world lived a “modest” Western European lifestyle based on current energy patterns, it could support only 1.9 billion people. If that “Western European” world then managed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent, this sustainable population figure would rise to 2.8 billion. However, this would still only represent 40 per cent of the current world population.***

Currently human demands are exceeding global biocapacity by 25 per cent, a figure projected to grow to 100 per cent by 2050, when the world’s population will need the equivalent of two Earths to support it.

Basically, we're fucked.

[KSpin]

Overpopulation isn't just about living space.

It's about water, food, pollution (air, noise, water, soil) , resources such as iron/oil/uranium/tin/copper etc that we mine out of the ground and then, obviously, cannot replace.

And being able to sustain the world without making it worse because of your presence.

So stop talking bollocks, ragnar.

QFT

QFT?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Quoted For Truth

[KSpin]

Quoted For Truth

Ah ha. Thank you.

[drd252]

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release04Dec06.htm

The UK’s sustainable population based on current patterns of resource use is just over 17 million, less than a third of its actual population of 60 million*, according to new research from the Optimum Population Trust.

Using newly released ecological footprinting data**, the OPT puts the world’s sustainable population at below 4.5 billion, a third less than the actual figure of 6.6 billion.

Footprinting measures the demands of a population against the resources the Earth can renewably supply - the planet’s annual “biocapacity”. However, the new calculations are based on current lifestyles, which are highly energy- and resource-intensive and therefore ecologically wasteful. Projections which take account of the potential for greener lifestyles, and also of the need for poverty relief and economic growth in the developing world, produce different sustainable population figures.

For example, if the UK cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent, in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with the British Government’s emissions reduction target for 2050, it could support a larger population - 26 million people, according to the OPT.

If the whole world lived a “modest” Western European lifestyle based on current energy patterns, it could support only 1.9 billion people. If that “Western European” world then managed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent, this sustainable population figure would rise to 2.8 billion. However, this would still only represent 40 per cent of the current world population.***

Currently human demands are exceeding global biocapacity by 25 per cent, a figure projected to grow to 100 per cent by 2050, when the world’s population will need the equivalent of two Earths to support it.

Basically, we're fucked.

I think that this view fails to take into account the power of our ingenuity. We will develop technology to increase the "biocapacity" of earth by utilizing previously unused resources, such as the extremely vast ocean. Eventually, food and energy production will be moved off-shore. Food will be grown hydroponically in huge structures in the ocean. Once we harness fusion power, the ocean seems an ideal location for fusion reactors, since their fuel will come from the ocean anyway. On land, cities will give way to archologies, which are far more efficient than traditional sprawling cities, since they fully utilize the vertical dimension. Ultimately, it wont matter if the human population continues to increase, because we'll eventually colonize the moon, and mars, and various other outposts in the solar system. The quantity of resources in our local space could easily support tens of billions of people, even if only a small portion are off-world, they will funnel the required materials back to Earth

Edit: LINKS!!!

Ocean thermal energy conversion
Kardashev Scale
Archology

[olduser]

I trust in technology, but it is difficult to estimate the time before it will be ready for practical implementation, and most technology has horrible effects on local ecology. IN THE MEAN TIME let's consider being more conservative about children and resources, unless your seed has the gauraunteed scientist mutation. In which case, oh god, breed!!

I am conflicted with individual choices when it comes to individuality. I know that if I ride my bike to work the cost is a few hundred calories. But what if the price of making thisfood(soil management -> fertilizer -> travel) is less sustainable than driving the 4 miles? We need more accurate measures.

[Exodus]

Kardashev Scale, sweet.

Anyway, although ragnar's argument is horribly simplistic and not to the point, overpopulation is not a problem in the sense that it will cause the human race to suddenly go extinct. IF it is a problem, most likely the death rate will go up gradually until equilibrium is reached. Basic economics.

[KSpin]

It takes millions of years for oil to be created naturally, so driving isn't really all that sustainable.

Unless you drive a car powered by solar cells, or somesuch.

[Exodus]

Anybody who says they know how much oil is in the ground is full of shit.

[FDG]

Anybody who says they know how much oil is in the ground is full of shit.

or of oil?

[Exodus]

Anybody who says they know how much oil is in the ground is full of shit.

or of oil?

eeeeeeeeeh

[KSpin]

Anybody who says they know how much oil is in the ground is full of shit.

or of oil?

eeeeeeeeeh

The more oil there is in the ground, the worse the situation is for mankind, in my opinion.

[Animal]

Kardashev Scale, sweet.

Anyway, although ragnar's argument is horribly simplistic and not to the point, overpopulation is not a problem in the sense that it will cause the human race to suddenly go extinct. IF it is a problem, most likely the death rate will go up gradually until equilibrium is reached. Basic economics.

In many ways, we're already experiencing the screw-over. Perhaps not us at the top of the economic food chain, but those (even here in the U.S.) are seeing its effect in the here and now.

[ragnar]

... the Earth is huge and humans are few.

True as this may be in the geographic sense, we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us - not merely to give us standing space.

Funny you should mention "standing space". Right there on Baffin Island is a nice little lake nobody has ever heard of, called Nettiling Lake. According to Wikipedia, it's surface area is appx 1,956 sq mi. The world population is about 6 billion, which translates into something like almost a full square yard per person, which is ample standing space.

So when this little lake nobody has ever heard of freezes over, there's standing room on the ice for every man, woman and child in the whole world.

So: Not only is there enough room on this obscure island for everyone in the whole world to live quite comfortably and spaciously there, there's also a natural place on the island just the right size for us to gather together and listen to Pink Floyd concerts.


Repeating my point: The earth is huge and humans are few.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettilling_Lake

Greetings, ragnar

[ragnar]

we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us

The earth doesn't "sustain" us. It's more correct to say it's basically out to kill us.

Precisely because "mother nature" is indifferent at best and genocidal at worst, we need fellow humans to provide us with clothing, housing, food, medical attention &c to protect us from her. The more men we have, the more we'll have of those things, and luxuries as well.

I do understand that people worry about "exponential growth", but those worries are unfounded. All population numbers - from bacteria to houseflies to humans - basically follow a sequence of sigmoid curves, not an exponential one. At certain isolated intervals such a curve looks exponential, though - that's what the demagogues exploit.

This guy Malthus popularized this "exponential growth" scare in 1798.

To me, the success of the scare illustrating that a little knowledge can be more dangerous than no knowledge. To repeat: No population in nature follows an exponential curve, nor does any human populations.

Also, the most vexing problem for many countries right now is actually depopulation from aging and lack of children.

Russia, for instance, is actually dying off. It's already shrinking by more than half a million people per year. The situation is similar in much of western europe.


Greetings, ragnar

Sources:
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-38603
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP162/index2.html
http://www.aei.org/publications/filt...pub_detail.asp

[drd252]

we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us

The earth doesn't "sustain" us. It's more correct to say it's basically out to kill us.

Precisely because "mother nature" is indifferent at best and genocidal at worst, we need fellow humans to provide us with clothing, housing, food, medical attention &c to protect us from her. The more men we have, the more we'll have of those things, and luxuries as well.

I do understand that people worry about "exponential growth", but those worries are unfounded. All population numbers - from bacteria to houseflies to humans - basically follow a sequence of sigmoid curves, not an exponential one. At certain isolated intervals such a curve looks exponential, though - that's what the demagogues exploit.

This guy Malthus popularized this "exponential growth" scare in 1798.

To me, the success of the scare illustrating that a little knowledge can be more dangerous than no knowledge. To repeat: No population in nature follows an exponential curve, nor does any human populations.

Also, the most vexing problem for many countries right now is actually depopulation from aging and lack of children.

Russia, for instance, is actually dying off. It's already shrinking by more than half a million people per year. The situation is similar in much of western europe.


Greetings, ragnar

Sources:
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-38603
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP162/index2.html
http://www.aei.org/publications/filt...pub_detail.asp

So, Earth doesn't sustain us? We must therefore be sustained by manna from heaven, I can't believe I didn't see it before. Everything we need to live simply manifests itself without end.

/sarcasm

Don't be so fucking stupid. More men does not equal more ability to get more stuff to "fend off the genocidal whore that is mother nature". More men equals more ability to deplete the very un-unlimited resources at our disposal, and therefore kill mother nature. You seem totally unaware that our actions are, on the whole destructive, good for us (right now) and bad for everything else; our destructive ways will eventually destroy us, therefore, we must change our ways.

[Exodus]

... the Earth is huge and humans are few.

True as this may be in the geographic sense, we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us - not merely to give us standing space.

Funny you should mention "standing space". Right there on Baffin Island is a nice little lake nobody has ever heard of, called Nettiling Lake. According to Wikipedia, it's surface area is appx 1,956 sq mi. The world population is about 6 billion, which translates into something like almost a full square yard per person, which is ample standing space.

So when this little lake nobody has ever heard of freezes over, there's standing room on the ice for every man, woman and child in the whole world.

So: Not only is there enough room on this obscure island for everyone in the whole world to live quite comfortably and spaciously there, there's also a natural place on the island just the right size for us to gather together and listen to Pink Floyd concerts.

Yes, we don't need anything that takes up a lot of space like, say, agriculture.

It is conceivable that we could squeeze everybody into a very small space, but only after we find massively more efficient means of living. And even then, humans will still use all available space to their advantage, unless there is a compelling reason not to.

we will at some point excede the earth's ability to sustain us

The earth doesn't "sustain" us. It's more correct to say it's basically out to kill us.

Precisely because "mother nature" is indifferent at best and genocidal at worst, we need fellow humans to provide us with clothing, housing, food, medical attention &c to protect us from her.

?

This kind of anthropomorphic argument is just silly.

I do understand that people worry about "exponential growth", but those worries are unfounded. All population numbers - from bacteria to houseflies to humans - basically follow a sequence of sigmoid curves, not an exponential one. At certain isolated intervals such a curve looks exponential, though - that's what the demagogues exploit.

Good point.

[Gilly]

Anybody who says they know how much oil is in the ground is full of shit.

or of oil?

eeeeeeeeeh

The more oil there is in the ground, the worse the situation is for mankind, in my opinion.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[UDP]

And being able to sustain the world without making it worse because of your presence.

The future is up to us. Are we unintelligent enough to destroy our ability to live? We shall see.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

AHHHHHH! STOP THE HETEROSEXUALITY!!!

lol that number chart makes me crack up.

[Exodus]

W
T
F
?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol just a joke. I seem to have that effect on people. =)

As for what I think of overpopulation I have no idea. I just know that I am doing my part. No desire to breed, at least not yet. That's all any of us can do. I don't think I can change people's minds. People are gonna have as many kids as they damn well please, that's all there is to it. Education seems to help, but they have to be smart in the first place to be attracted and effected by it. Intelligent people have always been conservative in nature anyway, and it's a good reason we won't have more kids even though it might seem like we're the ones that should reproduce more. I think the balance already exists. Also you can't really complain of smart people not breeding more while people you don't like not breeding. That attitude is just gonna make them breed more just to spite you. Hell I'd probably do the same thing myself if somebody told me to stop breeding. You can't be biased or prejudiced or just try to cleanse out a certain personality type you disagree with. (note to self: start a new thread about type holocaust)

Smart men I've noticed breed at a much later age with an equally intelligent woman and they usually have one kid. The kid turns out to be an annoying child that's spoiled too much and has a big ego like a celebrity that thinks they can change everybody while also hanging around with a bunch of gays and becoming a gay icon. Probably talks about 'raising awareness of Afirca AIDS' and is more kind, patient and empathetic, traits that 95% of the population doesn't have they just think they do. Will probably become a vegan and adopt a chinese baby. But that's okay. Everything is about balance...

[FDG]

lol just a joke. I seem to have that effect on people. =)

As for what I think of overpopulation I have no idea. I just know that I am doing my part. No desire to breed, at least not yet. That's all any of us can do. I don't think I can change people's minds. People are gonna have as many kids as they damn well please, that's all there is to it. Education seems to help, but they have to be smart in the first place to be attracted and effected by it. Intelligent people have always been conservative in nature anyway, and it's a good reason we won't have more kids even though it might seem like we're the ones that should reproduce more. I think the balance already exists. Also you can't really complain of smart people not breeding more while people you don't like not breeding. That attitude is just gonna make them breed more just to spite you. Hell I'd probably do the same thing myself if somebody told me to stop breeding. You can't be biased or prejudiced or just try to cleanse out a certain personality type you disagree with. (note to self: start a new thread about type holocaust)

Smart men I've noticed breed at a much later age with an equally intelligent woman and they usually have one kid. The kid turns out to be an annoying child that's spoiled too much and has a big ego like a celebrity that thinks they can change everybody while also hanging around with a bunch of gays and becoming a gay icon. Probably talks about 'raising awareness of Afirca AIDS' and is more kind, patient and empathetic, traits that 95% of the population doesn't have they just think they do. Will probably become a vegan and adopt a chinese baby. But that's okay. Everything is about balance...

...

[Kristiina]

lol just a joke. I seem to have that effect on people. =)

As for what I think of overpopulation I have no idea. I just know that I am doing my part. No desire to breed, at least not yet. That's all any of us can do. I don't think I can change people's minds. People are gonna have as many kids as they damn well please, that's all there is to it. Education seems to help, but they have to be smart in the first place to be attracted and effected by it. Intelligent people have always been conservative in nature anyway, and it's a good reason we won't have more kids even though it might seem like we're the ones that should reproduce more. I think the balance already exists. Also you can't really complain of smart people not breeding more while people you don't like not breeding. That attitude is just gonna make them breed more just to spite you. Hell I'd probably do the same thing myself if somebody told me to stop breeding. You can't be biased or prejudiced or just try to cleanse out a certain personality type you disagree with. (note to self: start a new thread about type holocaust)

Smart men I've noticed breed at a much later age with an equally intelligent woman and they usually have one kid. The kid turns out to be an annoying child that's spoiled too much and has a big ego like a celebrity that thinks they can change everybody while also hanging around with a bunch of gays and becoming a gay icon. Probably talks about 'raising awareness of Afirca AIDS' and is more kind, patient and empathetic, traits that 95% of the population doesn't have they just think they do. Will probably become a vegan and adopt a chinese baby. But that's okay. Everything is about balance...

Well, you can have your one kid if you please, but Estonia is kinda dying of old age, just as Germany. The population of Estonia is rapidly decreasing while the population of dimwitted no-food-no-decent-living-conditions other civilizations (barely civilized, may I add) rapidly increases until they start dying of hunger because there is not enough resources for them. I wish they had thought of that before they had more kids. It's written that "Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds."link. But do they take the hint? Nooo... More kids = more people who can work and grow food for the family. But when there's a bad crops season, half of them die and the parents must start all over again. But does that mean that I will do my best to have just one kid, a kind of attitude which will result in national poverty in my country where having too many kids has never been much of a problem? No.

And anyone who says that the world can sustain plenty more billions of people because there is still plenty of area that is inhabited, should get a stamp saying "dumbass" to mark the forehead to keep away any woman who would otherwise have been willing to have their children.


Anyway, I think Earth will eventually stabilize because enough people will die of hunger and in future resource-related wars so that the rest of the people actually get the hint and world will be a better place. Trust Darwin to fix the world. Amen.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Funny you should mention "standing space". Right there on Baffin Island is a nice little lake nobody has ever heard of, called Nettiling Lake. According to Wikipedia, it's surface area is appx 1,956 sq mi. The world population is about 6 billion, which translates into something like almost a full square yard per person, which is ample standing space.

So when this little lake nobody has ever heard of freezes over, there's standing room on the ice for every man, woman and child in the whole world.

So: Not only is there enough room on this obscure island for everyone in the whole world to live quite comfortably and spaciously there, there's also a natural place on the island just the right size for us to gather together and listen to Pink Floyd concerts.

Baffin Island is 507,000 square Kilometres, which is 507,000,000 square metres (507 million) - the world's population is just over 6.6 billion (i.e. 6,600,000,000) - which would mean thirteen people for every square metre (with a square metre being slightly bigger than a square yard) on Baffin Island - admittedly, most concerts have that kind of density - but you have to put all the elephants somewhere, and with that kind of crowding, you'd never get anything done.

[KSpin]

Good luck getting enough resources for machines, houses, food, and even energy, especially for 6.6 billion people.

[ragnar]

with that kind of crowding, you'd never get anything done.

In case anyone cares, here's the actual calculations (in metrics):

Total area of Baffin island: 507,451 km2
Surface area of the lake there: 5,066 km²
Assumed world population: 7 billion

Present population density of Monaco: 23,660/km2
Present population density in Brooklyn, NY: 13,483/km²
Present population density of Singapore: 6,369/km2


If the present world population relocated to Baffin island we would get 7 billion people on the 507,451 km2 there, which gives density

7,000,000,000 / 507,451 = 13,794 persons per km2, which is like in Brooklyn.

World population standing on frozen surface of Nettilling Lake: 5,066 km2 = 5,066,000,000 m2, so we would get
7,000,000,000 / 5,066,000,000 = 1.38 persons per m2, which is appx 0.7 m2 per person. Fully acceptable for a Pink Floyd concert, methinks.

Good luck getting enough resources for machines, houses, food, and even energy, especially for 6.6 billion people.

Thanx! I'm not forgetting space for farms, factories, parks, summer houses, roads, airports, spaceports, mines, public buildings and stuff like that either, so I'm prepared to sacrifice a few of the neighboring Canadian territories and provinces as well.

Greetings, ragnar


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...slands_by_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettilling_Lake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn

[Not A Communist Shill]

Thanx! I'm not forgetting space for farms, factories, parks, summer houses, roads, airports, spaceports, mines, public buildings and stuff like that either, so I'm prepared to sacrifice a few of the neighboring Canadian territories and provinces as well.

Oh, shit, yeah - it must be difficult finding a suitable model to replicate everybody on the planet, all the required human infrastructure and the impact this will have on the environment - hang on, why don't we just see the world as it is?

By 2050, we will consume to the equivalent of the regenerative capacity of two Earths - we are already exceeding the regenerative capacity of this single Earth what we are on - obviously, this isn't sustainable, by definition.

[Creepy-bg]

Thanx! I'm not forgetting space for farms, factories, parks, summer houses, roads, airports, spaceports, mines, public buildings and stuff like that either, so I'm prepared to sacrifice a few of the neighboring Canadian territories and provinces as well.

Oh, shit, yeah - it must be difficult finding a suitable model to replicate everybody on the planet, all the required human infrastructure and the impact this will have on the environment - hang on, why don't we just see the world as it is?

By 2050, we will consume to the equivalent of the regenerative capacity of two Earths - we are already exceeding the regenerative capacity of this single Earth what we are on - obviously, this isn't sustainable, by definition.

the obvious answer is to nuke the moon

[Not A Communist Shill]

[Kristiina]

Ragnar, I'm so glad that you're not serious about what you're saying. You're just talking "hypothetically, if we forget about all common sense and pretend to be ultimate and utter morons."

I wouldn't feel too bad if the area of Canada was sacrificed to get supplements to feed THE ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION. Small sacrifice to make IMHO, but there are some minor problems with that idea. Canada is 9 million km[sup:bc15600873]2[/sup:bc15600873], or 900 million hectares. "The total agricultural area in the world amounts to 5.0 billion ha. Of this, about 1.5 billion ha (30.4%) is arable land and land under permanent crops. A decreasing growth rate of 0.3% has been noted over the ten year period."link.... Not to mention the time when (almost?) all arable land in Canada is covered in snow. Fortunately the people of the world have combined their efforts to make Canada a warmer place for growing crops! Yay for global warming.

[Blaze]

Quoted For Truth

lol i thought this meant quite fucking true.

hahahahaha

[Exodus]

Anyway, I think Earth will eventually stabilize because enough people will die of hunger and in future resource-related wars so that the rest of the people actually get the hint and world will be a better place. Trust Darwin to fix the world. Amen.

Exactly.

[Gilly]

Anyway, I think Earth will eventually stabilize because enough people will die of hunger and in future resource-related wars so that the rest of the people actually get the hint and world will be a better place. Trust Darwin to fix the world. Amen.

Exactly.

Unless we run out of oil before we develop sustainable energy technology, or if we blow ourselves up (not unlikely). That would be Darwin at his finest.