Article re worldwide population decline

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the New York Times:

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications
Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom.

Some excerpts:

My daughter spent a year as an exchange student in Italy.  People were astounded when they found out she came from a family with six children.

I wonder what this shift will mean for the Church.  

Here the article puts the value of people in almost purely economic terms.  I think the impact of radically fewer children will be dire in other ways as well.

Technology has vastly improved healthcare, food production, and otherwise made having children easier.  Yet here we are, having radically fewer children.  Quite a few reasons for this.

If "gender inequality" has been "persistent," then how is it a factor in decreasing fertility?

Boy, it will be interesting to see how things are situated thirty years from now.

Wow.

"There are not enough children."

Sad words, these.

Encouraging people to have children is, I think, largely beyond the purview of the government.  Social/cultural norms and expectations can only be coaxed so far via governmental interventionism.

Wow.

My (prospective) grandchildren will likely live to see such things.

I was just speaking with a friend who is predicting that 3D-printed housing will, in the very near future, radically alter the housing markets in the United States.  Here in Utah there is a shortage of affordable housing, and the same can be said for other locations as well.  But 3D-printed housing looks like it may be a "disruptive technology" that could bring housing prices down quite a bit.

But then, a severe imbalance between supply and demand could bring down prices too.  Imagine that housing becomes substantially more affordable than it is now, both because 3D-printing has brought hard costs down and because population decline reduces the demand for housing overall.  This is just one of a thousand ramifications we could see in the next few decades stemming from population decline (and technology).  

I wonder if the "green shoots" comment can be justified.  See here:

So nobody has yet been able to recover from this massive demographic spiral down.

I'd like to see these surveys.  

So, thoughts?  What do you think this will mean for the world in the next 30-80 years (second half of this century)?

And more particularly, what do you think this means for the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

So much for Paul Ehrlich and the “Population Bomb” scare that got so much attention in the early 1970s, when I was in high school. The musical “Saturday’s Warrior” had it as a plot element. 
 

I predict the current climate change hysteria will go the way of the “population bomb.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

Edited May 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[OGHoosier]

There are times when I absolutely despise being young, and reading the OP was one of them. I have no desire to see these projections unfold but most likely I will live just long enough to do so.  

And, I'm not gonna lie, it's not a meme to say that the rising generation has some simmering resentment from the realization that we shall sustain our society's retirement-facilitation programs but shall not reap the fruits. 

I think the LDS and Orthodox Jewish resistance to depopulating trends comes from being a "peculiar people" with a strong group identity outside the mere national or civilizational identity. I don't believe doctrine can be considered as the decisive factor, Catholicism doctrinally forbids contraception and encourages large-family formation, so the difference between Catholic and LDS fertility rates is unlikely to be a result of doctrine as their doctrines can be considered more pro-natal than ours. I think we seem to buck the trend (for the moment) because we're weird. We're different. Outside the mainstream. We're insulated to an extent from the causes of these large-scale cultural trends, and so long as we identify as something more than just our surrounding culture we will be able to resist the trends. Being a peculiar people is extremely advantageous when the normal people are sprinting headlong into a beguilingly-painted brick wall like so many Wil E. Coyotes. 

A pox on "normalization." The Church being weird is not a curse. 

Edit: @The Nehor may have a point, it may not be realistic to expect 20th-century trends to continue in perpetuity. And if child-care costs are truly the biggest impediment, then addressing that would be wise. I fear, however, that since our society was basically totally reconstructed in the 20th-century, the systems we built are not prepared for those 20th-century trends to fail, and the resulting crisis will be the defining setting of my life, at the very least. 

So much for sitting under the vine and fig tree.  

Edited May 24, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

There are times when I absolutely despise being young, and reading the OP was one of them. I have no desire to see these projections unfold but most likely I will live just long enough to do so. ...

Oh, yeah?!  Well, it's true that I ain't no spring chicken, but I despise you because you're brilliant.

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Orthodox Jews and TR Mormons seem to buck the trend.  We might want to ask why.  There are other modern groups who do as well.  Why?  What is it about such groups that favors higher fertility?

Many years ago, I met a woman in Independence, Missouri.  In casual conversation, it came out that she thought having a baby was the most satisfying thing she had ever done.  Marriage, her husband, etc., were not nearly as meaningful.  When I met her, she pointed out that her daughter was now in her early twenties and that they were best friends.

I can also recall being in the early morning market in Jerusalem many years ago, seeing two men, obviously father and son -- they looked so much alike, except that one was so much younger.  They could have been Abraham and Isaac.  There was something in those instances about family, the real meaning of family, which no longer exists for us.

And yet, the diminution of the extended family means that grandma will not be there to care for junior while mama is at work.  The extended family has always been key to successful large families.

In Sweden, where the greatest effort on the planet has been exerted to gain equality qua equity (equal outcomes), women oddly favor traditional roles or traditional jobs (teaching, nursing, caregiving, etc.).  What is it the social engineers are missing?  Is nurture everything for them, and nature nothing?

Then there is ideology:  Has China brought true happiness to its people?  Do people thrive in dictatorships in which everyone knows the rules and expectations are fulfilled?  Are the people of Hong Kong likely to have more or less children now that they are so harshly repressed?  How will Taiwan fare when the ChiCom govt takes the island by force?  Will people want to have children?  Note that democracy has not thrived in Russia or Byelorussia.  Women will now once again be treated like animals in Afghanistan.

Perhaps in the short term, but we might want to take a longer historical purview.  Demography has always been oscillatory, like history itself, even if the human race has vastly increased over time.  Is the current demographic down spiral only temporary?

There is great potential for catastrophes in this century.  A low fertility rate may be the least of our problems.  Then there is the Second Coming of the Lord:  What are the implications of that event, and the following Millennium?  We need to abandon linear projections.  The future will not go as we imagine it.

Upvote for allowing our faith claims, the Second Coming in this instance, to inform one's potential anxieties about how the world seems to be going. All of us, from either side of the political spectrum, can easily tend towards different forms of "alarmism" that seem not to take into account that "all things work together for good to them who love God." Does a good father on earth want his children to be fearful or anxious about his management of family affairs? Our good Father in heaven isn't going to allow that his children should be full of worries. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Our good Father in heaven isn't going to allow that his children should be full of worries. 

He needs to make me stop then.

[AtlanticMike]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Our good Father in heaven isn't going to allow that his children should be full of worries

Uhhhh. I don't understand this. Shouldn't we be glad we have worries? If we have worries, we have choices which means we have freedom of thought. Satan wanted to alter God's plan so there would be universal salvation, meaning there would be no worries, everyone could receive it, supposedly. I'm kinda glad we have worries/hardships, it means we're learning and progressing. Am I looking at this wrong?

Edited May 24, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[gopher]

We need to make big families cool again.

[pogi]

I have heard people complain that AI is going to steal all of our jobs...well, it looks there may be an opening after all.  
 

There may be pains either way, but honestly, fewer people in the world will hurt less than too many - which we were rapidly approaching.  

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have heard people complain that AI is going to steal all of our jobs...well, it looks there may be an opening after all.  
 

There may be pains either way, but honestly, fewer people in the world will hurt less than too many - which we were rapidly approaching.  

Exactly. Until recently, an essential part of America's economic growth was the ability to exploit what had seemed like an unlimited supply of land, coal, minerals, and oil. It turns out that those things really aren't unlimited, and that exploiting them has externalities in the form of pollution, carbon emissions, soil erosion, etc. Now that the low-hanging fruit is gone, it is a different economic reality. While technology has produced new sources of wealth, it has also led to a world where that wealth is concentrated in very few hands.

Through technology, we've been able to multiply our ability to produce food, but the food we mass produce isn't particularly conductive of health.

Driven by the laws of mathematics, the population of any species will be controlled. There never has been nor ever will be an exception to this. Historically the forces that have controlled human population were disease, starvation, and war. We are now conquering those things, and instead are controlling the population through people choosing to have fewer kids. What could be more wonderful?

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that housing prices in some areas are onerous.  We can fix that.  We can also address deforestation and environmental issues.  We don't need to descend into misanthropy to do these things.

In the long run we can't fix any of those things with a population that is growing exponentially. Understanding this mathematical reality shouldn't be confused with misanthropy. 

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

There are times when I absolutely despise being young, and reading the OP was one of them. I have no desire to see these projections unfold but most likely I will live just long enough to do so.  

And, I'm not gonna lie, it's not a meme to say that the rising generation has some simmering resentment from the realization that we shall sustain our society's retirement-facilitation programs but shall not reap the fruits. 

I think the LDS and Orthodox Jewish resistance to depopulating trends comes from being a "peculiar people" with a strong group identity outside the mere national or civilizational identity. I don't believe doctrine can be considered as the decisive factor, Catholicism doctrinally forbids contraception and encourages large-family formation, so the difference between Catholic and LDS fertility rates is unlikely to be a result of doctrine as their doctrines can be considered more pro-natal than ours. I think we seem to buck the trend (for the moment) because we're weird. We're different. Outside the mainstream. We're insulated to an extent from the causes of these large-scale cultural trends, and so long as we identify as something more than just our surrounding culture we will be able to resist the trends. Being a peculiar people is extremely advantageous when the normal people are sprinting headlong into a beguilingly-painted brick wall like so many Wil E. Coyotes. 

A pox on "normalization." The Church being weird is not a curse. 

Edit: @The Nehor may have a point, it may not be realistic to expect 20th-century trends to continue in perpetuity. And if child-care costs are truly the biggest impediment, then addressing that would be wise. I fear, however, that since our society was basically totally reconstructed in the 20th-century, the systems we built are not prepared for those 20th-century trends to fail, and the resulting crisis will be the defining setting of my life, at the very least. 

So much for sitting under the vine and fig tree.  

In some countries like in the Polynesian Islands the despised elderly are actually respected and they do the child care for free while teaching the young the ways of their people. 

You can blame the politicians for stealing the money from the social security system.

Edited May 24, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

In some countries like in the Polynesian Islands the despised elderly are actually respected and they do the child care for free while teaching the young the ways of their people. 

You can blame the politicians for stealing the money from the social security system.

I bet the elderly there are doing a heck of a lot better than the US because in the US sometimes, it feels, the elderly are put out to pasture. The elderly in the Polynesian Islands make them feel needed! 

[poptart]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In some countries like in the Polynesian Islands the despised elderly are actually respected and they do the child care for free while teaching the young the ways of their people. 

You can blame the politicians for stealing the money from the social security system.

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I bet the elderly there are doing a heck of a lot better than the US because in the US sometimes, it feels, the elderly are put out to pasture. The elderly in the Polynesian Islands make them feel needed! 

Can tell you the elderly family I have on the outer islands are treated quite well.  Things have changed from what they were way back when but compared to the mainland?  Oh yeah totally different.  Last year really did it for me, I plan to just sit back, make sure moms ok, keep associating with that side then pop my head into whatever current events are happening here, popcorn in hand.  I'm sick and tired of peoples selfishness, entitlement and reaction to whenever their privilege gets called out.  I say let them tear each other apart like animals if they chose to treat each other as such.  Far as I can tell, a lot of people, esp. the single and child free have had it with all this and will act and vote accordingly.  Nice expression for current events, play stupid games win stupid prizes.  Far as I'm concerned China deserves the mandate of heaven.  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the long run we can't fix any of those things with a population that is growing exponentially.

I think we can.  For a few reasons. 

First, I don't think exponential population growth is a pragmatic prediction.  We've seen that as affluence arises, fecundity decreases.  Also, per this article, the UN population estimates since 1958 have been quite accurate, and the prediction is that growth rates will slow and then decline.  So nobody seems to be predicting "a population that is growing exponentially."

Second, I technology has an amazing capacity to disrupt.  Look at all the resources poured into meat production, then consider what could happen if lab-grown meats were to gain significant market share.  What happens to all those millions of acres of land?  All the water and calories fed to cattle and pigs and chickens?  What about thorium ractors?  Nuclear fusion?  Cheap energy?  What about advances in water desalination?  Technological innovation and ingenuity can resolve many of the scarcity-of-resources issues.

Third, Malthusian theorists like William Vogt and Paul Ehrlich have been wrong over and over.  Meanwhile, folks like Norman Borlaug have shown that "carrying capcity" seems to be a pretty elastic concept, and that technological innovations can have a profound effect on crop yields.  See, e.g., this article: The Earth’s carrying capacity for human life is not fixed

Fourth, the Brethren continue to encourage us to marry and have children.  The number of children is left to the couple.

Fifth, D&C 104:17 states:

Quote

11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship;
12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.
13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.
14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

Sixth, from Wikipedia:

Quote

Several estimates of the carrying capacity of the earth for humans have been made with a wide range of population numbers. A 2001 UN report said that two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion. The application of the concept of carrying capacity for the human population, which exists in a non-equilibrium, is criticized for not successfully being able to model the processes between humans and the environment.  In popular discourse the concept has largely left the domain of academic consideration, and is simply used vaguely in the sense of a "balance between nature and human populations".

Per the above article the population will peak at around 11 billion people.  I think that technology can do quite a bit to mitigate any carrying capacity concerns.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Understanding this mathematical reality shouldn't be confused with misanthropy. 

Sure.  But misanthropy and malthusianism sure seem to go hand in hand.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Unfortunately, the lesson most people have taken from Malthus is that you have to be cruel to be kind. This runs right through the eugenic and population movements, and is alive and well today. When I write or speak about falling child mortality in Africa today, I can be sure I will get a response along exactly these Malthusian lines: but surely it’s a bad thing if you stop poor people dying? What’s the good of bringing economic growth to Africa: they will only have more babies.

Let’s call it Malthusian misanthropy. And it is 180-degrees wrong. The way to get population growth to slow, it turns out, is to keep babies alive, to bring health, prosperity and education to all.

The way to reduce the human impact on the planet is to get more technological, not less – to use metal and plastic and gas instead of wood, water and fodder.

There were plenty who thought Malthus’s recommendations cruel in his lifetime and afterwards. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon called it “the theory of political murder; of murder from motives of philanthropy and for love of God.”

Britain’s new Poor Law of 1834, which attempted to ensure that the very poor were not helped except in workhouses, and that conditions in workhouses were not better than the worst in the outside world, was based explicitly on Malthusian ideas – that too much charity only encouraged breeding, especially illegitimacy or “bastardy”.

The Irish potato famine of the 1840s was made infinitely worse by Malthusian prejudice shared by the British politicians in positions of power. The prime minister, Lord John Russell, was motivated by “a Malthusian fear about the long-term effect of relief”, according to a biographer.

See also here: Why Malthus Is Still Wrong

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jamie]

On 5/23/2021 at 9:37 AM, smac97 said:

"The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. "

So, thoughts?  What do you think this will mean for the world in the next 30-80 years (second half of this century)?

And more particularly, what do you think this means for the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Fewer people on the planet and in the Church, probably, if the growth rate continues to go down.   Nothing to worry about though as long as we still have a man and woman who are married and reproducing themselves in the Church.  

Even if the global population somehow managed to drop back down to where it was in 1900, 1.6 billion people is still a lot of people.  And it will still take only 2, a man and woman who are married and able to reproduce, to make some more people.

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can.  For a few reasons. 

First, I don't think exponential population growth is a pragmatic prediction.

I wasn't predicting that exponential population growth would happen. I was saying that exponential population growth can NOT happen.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We've seen that as affluence arises, fecundity decreases.

Yes, and I consider that a good thing.

In contrast, the Mormon values as depicted in Saturday's Warrior depict this as a bad thing: the heavens are filled with spirit babies waiting to come to earth, and we are all under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, which is interpreted as having as many kids as you can. In the words of Dallin H. Oaks, "“How many children should a couple have? All they can care for!" (See here) Or in the words of David O. McKay, "We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."

If everyone followed that advice, it would eventually result in calamity. 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Also, per this article, the UN population estimates since 1958 have been quite accurate, and the prediction is that growth rates will slow and then decline.  So nobody seems to be predicting "a population that is growing exponentially."

Of course nobody is arguing that it is happening. I'm arguing that it can't happen--not indefinitely. However, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth implies exponential growth that would only be checked by disease, starvation, or war. People acting "contrary to the teachings of the Church [per David O. McKay]"  and artificially curtailing the birth of children is preventing death by disease, starvation, and war. That is a great thing.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, I technology has an amazing capacity to disrupt.  Look at all the resources poured into meat production, then consider what could happen if lab-grown meats were to gain significant market share.  What happens to all those millions of acres of land?  All the water and calories fed to cattle and pigs and chickens?  What about thorium ractors?  Nuclear fusion?  Cheap energy?  What about advances in water desalination?  Technological innovation and ingenuity can resolve many of the scarcity-of-resources issues.

None of those things would enable us to grow the population exponentially forever.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, Malthusian theorists like William Vogt and Paul Ehrlich have been wrong over and over.

Were they fundamentally wrong, or was disaster avoided because people are heeding their warnings?

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Meanwhile, folks like Norman Borlaug have shown that "carrying capcity" seems to be a pretty elastic concept, and that technological innovations can have a profound effect on crop yields.  See, e.g., this article: The Earth’s carrying capacity for human life is not fixed

That doesn't mean the earth's carrying capacity is infinite. 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, D&C 104:17 states...

The D&C states lots of things.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sixth, from Wikipedia: "Several estimates of the carrying capacity of the earth for humans have been made with a wide range of population numbers. ..."

That doesn't mean the population can grow exponentially forever.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per the above article the population will peak at around 11 billion people.  I think that technology can do quite a bit to mitigate any carrying capacity concerns.

Of course.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  But misanthropy and malthusianism sure seem to go hand in hand.  See, e.g., here: [...

Unfortunately, the lesson most people have taken from Malthus is that you have to be cruel to be kind. This runs right through the eugenic and population movements, and is alive and well today. When I write or speak about falling child mortality in Africa today, I can be sure I will get a response along exactly these Malthusian lines: but surely it’s a bad thing if you stop poor people dying? What’s the good of bringing economic growth to Africa: they will only have more babies.

Let’s call it Malthusian misanthropy. And it is 180-degrees wrong. The way to get population growth to slow, it turns out, is to keep babies alive, to bring health, prosperity and education to all.

That is precisely why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending billions trying to eradicate Africa's extreme poverty.

Some religious people, including many in Africa, disagree that getting population growth to slow down is a good thing. My point is simple: slowing growth down is a good thing. As yesterday's New York Times article points out, slowing population growth has its own pain. I'm not denying that. I'm just emphasizing that not slowing down growth would be infinitely worse.

[Jamie]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I wasn't predicting that exponential population growth would happen. I was saying that exponential population growth can NOT happen.

Yes, and I consider that a good thing.

In contrast, the Mormon values as depicted in Saturday's Warrior depict this as a bad thing: the heavens are filled with spirit babies waiting to come to earth, and we are all under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, which is interpreted as having as many kids as you can. In the words of Dallin H. Oaks, "“How many children should a couple have? All they can care for!" (See here) Or in the words of David O. McKay, "We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."

If everyone followed that advice, it would eventually result in calamity. 

Of course nobody is arguing that it is happening. I'm arguing that it can't happen--not indefinitely. However, the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth implies exponential growth that would only be checked by disease, starvation, or war. People acting "contrary to the teachings of the Church [per David O. McKay]"  and artificially curtailing the birth of children is preventing death by disease, starvation, and war. That is a great thing.

None of those things would enable us to grow the population exponentially forever.

Were they fundamentally wrong, or was disaster avoided because people are heeding their warnings?

That doesn't mean the earth's carrying capacity is infinite. 

The D&C states lots of things.

That doesn't mean the population can grow exponentially forever.

Of course.

That is precisely why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending billions trying to eradicate Africa's extreme poverty.

Some religious people, including many in Africa, disagree that getting population growth to slow down is a good thing. My point is simple: slowing growth down is a good thing. As yesterday's New York Times article points out, slowing population growth has its own pain. I'm not denying that. I'm just emphasizing that not slowing down growth would be infinitely worse.

The "eternal increase of babies is bad" idea seems to be grounded on the idea that we are limited to only this planet.  Now consider the possibility and actual likelihood that we will be able to find more ground or develop more objects in space to inhabit.

This planet is not the first we have lived on and it will not be the last.  And you don't need to be religious to be positive about our ability to go deeper and deeper into space, forever.  Lots of scientists are positive about space exploration and development.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Jamie

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The planet's capacity to support human life is finite, so we must know that we cannot rely on population, just like we cannot rely on debt. 

Of course it's finite, given that the earth's mass is finite. But how finite is it? What is the earth's carrying capacity, with proper management? We've got 7 billion now, Of course many are living in very poor conditions, but mainly because of extremely poor, even criminally poor management. What is the earth's true maximum? I submit you don't know.

True, if you rely upon 17th and 19th century models and technology, and take Thomas Malthus at his word, we're all going to die next week, because the planet should long ago have run out of resources. As it turns out, human ingenuity and problem-solving has long ago put Malthus's notions out to pasture, yet there are still those who insist upon living in the past. Malthus insisted that an increase in national wealth leads to more people, which eventually depletes everything, and destroys society. This is the so-called "Malthusian Trap". Turns out, Malthus didn't understand human behavior as well as he thought he did. Europe is a prime example, and the subject of this thread. Increased wealth is actually causing population shrinkage, not growth. In a hundred years at this rate we may very well see a world population half of what it is now, and not because we end up destroying ourselves. Assuming no Second Coming of Christ and no Millenium. Which I'm sure would make many folks happy.

We have a virtually limitless sources of non-polluting energy in the sun, and it's not even necessary to cover the earth's surface with photovoltaic panels. We don't even have to keep people living on the earth alone. Have you ever heard of the O'Neill cylinder? It is a cylindrical habitat which provides pseudo-gravitation through rotation, and can provide habitable environments for people in space. The basic OC is 5 miles (8.0 km) in diameter and 20 miles (32 km) long.  This gives it a usable interior surface area of 1,570 square miles. If you establish a population density of 100 people per square mile (the population density of the state of Alabama) then a "standard"-size OC could accommodate about 157,000 people. Let's let the earth go back to its original state, without humans, by manufacturing OCs and moving everyone off the planet! To house 7 billion people in OCs, you'd need about 45,000 of them. No problem! There are plenty of resources off planet to build them (it would take some time, though), and no need to raid earth for materials at all.  The moon has virtually endless supplies of metals and other elements needed to build all of those OCs. Limitless solar energy, too!  And if we're afraid of scarring the moon with our mining, thus ruining the view, we can do it all on the far side, which we never see! 

There is, by the way, a certain asteroid in the asteroid belt, named Psyche. It is 200 km in diameter and is 90% metal, chiefly iron and nickel. There is enough iron in Psyche to completely replace all iron sourcing on earth for millions of years or more. If our O'Neill Cylinders were constructed of iron, with walls 100 meters thick (to protect from meteors and cosmic radiation), there's enough iron in Psyche to make literally millions of O'Neill Cylinders. If we built one million OCs, we could have 157,000,000,000 humans floating around quite happily in space, making the earth into an occasionally-visited tourist destination with a relatively small population to maintain hotels and visitors centers. And let it recover from the current infestation of homo sapiens.

The sky's the limit, literally, if we stop staring only at the ground at our feet as if that was all there were.

Elon Musk wants to put a colony on Mars within ten years. I say "Go for it, Elon! But better start thinking outside the box!"

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm just emphasizing that not slowing down growth would be infinitely worse.

See my post about shipping everyone on earth out to O'Neill cylinders. And how we could build enough such habitats to house 157 billion people. Real Blue Sky stuff, of course.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

We have a virtually limitless sources of non-polluting energy in the sun,

Except that to convert it to useable energy likely will be contributing to polluting for a long time.  Not saying that we won’t eventually solve that issue, but that it could be quite some time until we do.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So much for Paul Ehrlich and the “Population Bomb” scare that got so much attention in the early 1970s, when I was in high school. The musical “Saturday’s Warrior” had it as a plot element. 
 

I predict the current climate change hysteria will go the way of the “population bomb.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

The population has exploded since 1970.

As for climate change "hysteria" meh.  I would expect such comments from you.  Check out the science.

[AtlanticMike]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The moon has virtually endless supplies of metals and other elements needed to build all of those OCs. Limitless solar energy

Limitless solar energy from the moon!!!!! Yeah, maybe,  butt where do you get an extension cord that long? 😁

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course it's finite, given that the earth's mass is finite. But how finite is it? What is the earth's carrying capacity, with proper management? We've got 7 billion now, Of course many are living in very poor conditions, but mainly because of extremely poor, even criminally poor management. What is the earth's true maximum? I submit you don't know.

True, if you rely upon 17th and 19th century models and technology, and take Thomas Malthus at his word, we're all going to die next week, because the planet should long ago have run out of resources. As it turns out, human ingenuity and problem-solving has long ago put Malthus's notions out to pasture, yet there are still those who insist upon living in the past. Malthus insisted that an increase in national wealth leads to more people, which eventually depletes everything, and destroys society. This is the so-called "Malthusian Trap". Turns out, Malthus didn't understand human behavior as well as he thought he did. Europe is a prime example, and the subject of this thread. Increased wealth is actually causing population shrinkage, not growth. In a hundred years at this rate we may very well see a world population half of what it is now, and not because we end up destroying ourselves. Assuming no Second Coming of Christ and no Millenium. Which I'm sure would make many folks happy.

We have a virtually limitless sources of non-polluting energy in the sun, and it's not even necessary to cover the earth's surface with photovoltaic panels. We don't even have to keep people living on the earth alone. Have you ever heard of the O'Neill cylinder? It is a cylindrical habitat which provides pseudo-gravitation through rotation, and can provide habitable environments for people in space. The basic OC is 5 miles (8.0 km) in diameter and 20 miles (32 km) long.  This gives it a usable interior surface area of 1,570 square miles. If you establish a population density of 100 people per square mile (the population density of the state of Alabama) then a "standard"-size OC could accommodate about 157,000 people. Let's let the earth go back to its original state, without humans, by manufacturing OCs and moving everyone off the planet! To house 7 billion people in OCs, you'd need about 45,000 of them. No problem! There are plenty of resources off planet to build them (it would take some time, though), and no need to raid earth for materials at all.  The moon has virtually endless supplies of metals and other elements needed to build all of those OCs. Limitless solar energy, too!  And if we're afraid of scarring the moon with our mining, thus ruining the view, we can do it all on the far side, which we never see! 

There is, by the way, a certain asteroid in the asteroid belt, named Psyche. It is 200 km in diameter and is 90% metal, chiefly iron and nickel. There is enough iron in Psyche to completely replace all iron sourcing on earth for millions of years or more. If our O'Neill Cylinders were constructed of iron, with walls 100 meters thick (to protect from meteors and cosmic radiation), there's enough iron in Psyche to make literally millions of O'Neill Cylinders. If we built one million OCs, we could have 157,000,000,000 humans floating around quite happily in space, making the earth into an occasionally-visited tourist destination with a relatively small population to maintain hotels and visitors centers. And let it recover from the current infestation of homo sapiens.

The sky's the limit, literally, if we stop staring only at the ground at our feet as if that was all there were.

Elon Musk wants to put a colony on Mars within ten years. I say "Go for it, Elon! But better start thinking outside the box!"

I think Malthus was wrong on many levels. Just one example is that human beings have biological mechanisms that prevent overpopulation. For example, being underweight lowers fertility. So if there is widespread food scarcity, people will have less babies.

As far as I understand it, in chemistry lingo, we could say that a major limiting reagent to human population is fresh water. Increased surfaces don't change that. 

In any case, even if artificial space worlds are possible, we're not there yet. And if we want to get there, we need to sustain life, civilisation, and productivity on a relatively continual basis.

We cannot push the current capacities recklessly without risking more local and widespread instabilities.

I have no gripe with mindful growth, none at all. But quality does matter, I think it needs to keep pace with quantity if we want sustainability.

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have no gripe with mindful growth, none at all. But quality does matter, I think it needs to keep pace with quantity if we want sustainability

We could have a much higher quality of life in many ways if we were willing to make do with less unnecessary possessions.  Would require a massive paradigm shift to create an economy not driven by consumerism though, jobs would need to be shifted to more service areas like medical and education.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

We could have a much higher quality of life in many ways if we were willing to make do with less unnecessary possessions.  Would require a massive paradigm shift to create an economy not driven by consumerism though, jobs would need to be shifted to more service areas like medical and education.

A big part of that consumerism is debt addiction. We go into more debt to pay previous debts, print money to finance them, and rely on consumerism for stability. And we engage in planned obsolescence to sustain consumption levels. Bad products with bad materials keep us buying things to replace stuff that breaks or wears out too fast. 

Mostly though, it's the richest 1 billion (average Americans included) who consume the most while billions more survive on tenths to hundredths of what we survive on daily. 

One silver lining of the pandemic perhaps might be learning more about human activities' relationships.