Population, Economy and the environment

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Following one of Swato's links this week I found this article in Alternet:

Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal "solutions"?

Reading the article there is some basic truth about the importance of political change (and pressure) but the article left me with a bad taste, if taking shorter showers doesn't help because most water is used for industrial farming shouldn't I stop using the products of those industrial farms?

The other side of the coin is that if consumerism brings ecological destruction the absence of it's economy creates social strife (look at the 3rd world). Could it be that we are just too many for a sustainable human society? Is our large population the elephant in the room?

[Griffin NoName]

Could it be that we are just too many for a sustainable human society? Is our large population the elephant in the room?

Possibly it is distribution that needs tackling. If we were all (globablly) allocated sensible living space across the terrain with geographical/race factors eliminated that might hep.

Perhaps it is time to form the "Disbersal of Universal Global Human Numbers Unified Terrain Society"* ?


* to be known as "Doughnuts"

[Pachyderm]

Yes, there are far too many people on the planet. More people are living longer, as medicine keeps extending longevity, and people are having children much later.


And the elephant in the room is me...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But you are the kind of gentle elephant that doesn't trample people and makes jokes...
---
The ugly questions are what how many people can be sustained in a logical manner in the planet, and uglier, if we already surpassed that number what happens with the rest? All the possibilities I can think are sad (utter destruction of all ecosystems), ugly (generalized hunger and strife) or right out unthinkable.

[Swatopluk]

Given the human record, I am a pessimist too. Children in the sand castle while the tide is rising.

[beagle]

I'm depressed by all the Malthusian pessimism.  If we put all our faith in a retreat to sustainability then we're just waiting for a virus to out evolve us or a Shoemaker-Levy 9 to mistake Earth for Jupiter.

I want the optimism of the Sixties and Seventies back; Rockets that go to the moon, supersonic airliners and psychopathic intelligent computers.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I guess the rockets going to the Moon had something to do with it. Since the plan [to conquest the Moon and beyond] was shelved we are forced to look at the same real state for an ever increasing amount of people.

Perhaps we should start blaming Sergey Korolyov's "early" demise?

[Swatopluk]

Unfortunately inside our solar system there could only be small outposts for man and emigrating to other solar systems will be illusuory for the time forseeable unless Einstein turns out to be severely wrong.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm unsure about Pessimism. Species go extinct. That is a fact which has never changed. Therefore we all just need to adjust to Realism. It's not that different to Atheism which after all many people adopt.

[Aggie]

I think there's a possibility that we are nearing a reasonable K; population growth is projected to decline in the future, with the population peaking somewhere around 2050.

Of course, a large factor in this is that many societies are moving away from agrarian and towards urban lifestyles, where large families are liabilities rather than assets.  Not sure how this will affect us in terms of sustainability.

[Swatopluk]

Although in absolute numbers probably more people now live in halfway decent living conditions than ever before, their relative fraction is going down, I fear.
That means the wellbeing of the lucky is bought with the increased misery of the many. Any 'fair' solution will require the lucky to do with less, so that the many can get at least something. And the many would have to reduce their numbers (in a humane way) so that their fair share has not to be divided under ever more people leaving less to each.
Let's put it that way. Did we in the West (on average) live in abject poverty 20-30 years ago? A return to the consumption levels of then should therefore not be the horror it is usually painted at. And with the technology of today we could afford our standard of living of the past while using far less resources than we did then. Just look at the mileage of cars. Adjusted by weight the cars of the 50/60ies were much more thirsty and dirty than those of today. We just don't notice beacsue their absolute weight has multiplied (compare a first generation Beetle or 2CV with a civilian Hummer*).
There is so much we didn't miss then because we did not know they would exist in the future (we should keep the internet though ).

*Ok, US SUV engines are not actually very fuel efficient even with weight adjustment.

[Aggie]

Just look at the mileage of cars. Adjusted by weight the cars of the 50/60ies were much more thirsty and dirty than those of today. We just don't notice beacsue their absolute weight has multiplied (compare a first generation Beetle or 2CV with a civilian Hummer*).
There is so much we didn't miss then because we did not know they would exist in the future (we should keep the internet though ).

*Ok, US SUV engines are not actually very fuel efficient even with weight adjustment.

Not sure you are comparing apples to apples - I have the strong suspicion that the average vehicle weight for American cars may not be higher now than in the 50's/60's.  Europe was probably different then, but do you have the same degree of SUV infection now?

[Griffin NoName]

Any 'fair' solution will require the lucky to do with less, so that the many can get at least something. And the many would have to reduce their numbers (in a humane way) so that their fair share has not to be divided under ever more people leaving less to each.

The misery of the poor in a western country (eg UK) does not induce the wealthy* in that country to do with less so I can't see this ever coming about worldwide. 

* I am not wealthy but at present** I am not dirt poor either and I have to admit I am not in a hurry to give up some of the things that give me pleasure in order to give to the poor.....

**if I live much longer I will become poor, then poorer, and not long until very poor....... and forced to do without all that gives me pleasure....

[Swatopluk]

European SUVs are less popular (remember that we pay for a liter what USians pay for a gallon of gas) and have more fuel efficient engines, many of them Diesel. This despite having the same production companies. But in the US Diesel engines are unpopular for private cars and more modern gasoline engines 'don't give the right sound'.
Apart from that newer German driving licenses have stricter limitations for weight, so those that don't invest the extra hours (and therefore money) for the higher level licence could not legally drive the heavier US models anyway.

[Aggie]

European SUVs are less popular (remember that we pay for a liter what USians pay for a gallon of gas) and have more fuel efficient engines, many of them Diesel. This despite having the same production companies.

My Korean-made 'large automobile' (not an SUV, damnit! It's built around a Sonata platform and has a 2.4L engine - hardly Hummer-class) is produced as diesel-only in Korea. I'd be tempted to import one, as the diesel option isn't available here. Then again, diesel is more expensive than gasoline in AB and prone to shortages.