Author Topic: 8 billion  (Read 1221 times)

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
    • Spirituality & Science
8 billion
« on: September 06, 2022, 07:02:20 AM »
Hi everyone,

An interesting article about the human population numbers..  Is over population the problem or over consumption?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220905-is-the-world-overpopulated

**********

On the uncannily specific date of 15 November 2022, the United Nations has predicted that there will be eight billion humans alive at the same time – up to 800,000 times as many as there were survivors of the Toba catastrophe.

Today, our population is so enormous, with such little genetic diversity – outside Africa – one researcher recently observed it's actually not that surprising that some people look uncannily similar to perfect strangers – there's a limited gene pool that's constantly being recycled and around 370,000 new opportunities (in the form of babies born) for these genetic coincidences to occur each day.

But with humanity's expanding population has come great division. Some view our rising numbers as an unprecedented success story – in fact, there's an emerging school of thought that we actually need more people. In 2018 the tech billionaire Jeff Bezos predicted a future in which our population will reach a new decimal milestone, in the form of a trillion humans scattered across our Solar System – and announced that he's planning ways to achieve it.

Others, meanwhile – including the British broadcaster and natural historian Sir David Attenborough – have labelled our swarming masses a "plague on the Earth". In this view, nearly every environmental problem we're currently facing, from climate change to biodiversity loss, water stresses and conflicts over land, can be traced back to our rampant reproduction over the last few centuries. Back in 1994 – when the global population was a mere 5.5 billion – a team of researchers from Stanford University, in California, calculated that the ideal size of our species would be between 1.5 and 2 billion people.

However, though the degree to which humanity will continue to expand across the planet is still to be decided, some trajectories have already been set. And one is that the human population is likely to continue to grow for some time, regardless of any possible efforts to decrease it.

**********

Any views?

Sriram

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2022, 01:51:36 PM »
That is some long and tedious article!

It is too long, presenting some questionable ideas and posing no real question.

"Is over population the problem or over consumption?" is nonsense as a question as population and consumption are closely linked. What problem are they referring to?

I'm happy to discuss population, consumption, environment, progress or whatever ... but you need a question or proposition that can be discussed.
 
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2022, 05:43:46 AM »



No doubt overpopulation is a problem. But having said that, 100 years  ago when the population was just about 2 billion the world was no better. It was in fact worse in terms of the political situation, poverty, health, food supply and so on.

Not sure if the world today is better or worse...!

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18010
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2022, 04:39:03 PM »


No doubt overpopulation is a problem. But having said that, 100 years  ago when the population was just about 2 billion the world was no better. It was in fact worse in terms of the political situation, poverty, health, food supply and so on.

Not sure if the world today is better or worse...!
How achingly anthropocentric - seeing the world myopically, entirely through the eyes of human politics, poverty, food supply etc. You do realise that there are estimated to be at least 8million species on the planet - and humans are just one of them.

So perhaps the past 100 years has been OK for humans that represent just 0.0000125% of the species on the planet. But what about the other 99.9999%? Human activity, in large part driven by overpopulation has resulted in a huge increase in the rates of extinction of other species, compared to pre-human times, or even earlier than 100 years ago - see figure 1 on the link.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/decline-and-extinction/

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65852
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2022, 08:04:45 PM »
Not sure that humans can really be anything other than anthropocentric.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2022, 09:10:24 PM by Nearly Sane »

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2022, 05:26:08 AM »
How achingly anthropocentric - seeing the world myopically, entirely through the eyes of human politics, poverty, food supply etc. You do realise that there are estimated to be at least 8million species on the planet - and humans are just one of them.

So perhaps the past 100 years has been OK for humans that represent just 0.0000125% of the species on the planet. But what about the other 99.9999%? Human activity, in large part driven by overpopulation has resulted in a huge increase in the rates of extinction of other species, compared to pre-human times, or even earlier than 100 years ago - see figure 1 on the link.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/decline-and-extinction/



Why achingly??  Quite obviously we are concerned about the effects of over population on human societies....not about its effects on insects, animals and trees (except to the extent it might impact on humans again).



ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18010
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2022, 08:42:39 AM »
Quite obviously we are concerned about the effects of over population on human societies....not about its effects on insects, animals and trees (except to the extent it might impact on humans again).
It isn't obvious at all Sriram. It is an orthodox view amongst environmentalist that we have a responsibility to the planet and other species regardless of whether that impacts on us. Certainly environmentalists also recognise that what we are doing to the planet will likely have a negative impact on humans as well, but that isn't the basic ethical position that as a species the planet isn't just a plaything for us to use as we like.

So there are many people who are concerned about the impact of humans on 'insects, animals (sic - in what way isn't an insect an animal Sriram) and trees' regardless of any impact on humans. Does it matter if we destroy a habitat and ecosystem resulting in many species becoming extinct - yes it does, and it still matters even if there are no impacts on humans.

Only if you are achingly athropocentric would you only consider the impacts on a single species, humans.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2022, 09:12:41 AM »


You really are an argumentative person Prof!  Yes...I understand the ethical issues about protecting other species, even though that is not what the article is about.

You could perhaps start with becoming a vegetarian....

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18010
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2022, 09:32:26 AM »
You really are an argumentative person Prof!  Yes...I understand the ethical issues about protecting other species, even though that is not what the article is about.
Then why on earth did you make the following comment:

Quite obviously we are concerned about the effects of over population on human societies....not about its effects on insects, animals and trees (except to the extent it might impact on humans again).

Which clearly implies that we shouldn't concern ourselves about the plight of non human species unless that impacts on humans. I am not argumentative, I am merely challenging your very clear comment - this is what a MB like this is supposed to be all about.

If you don't believe what you said (see above) - fine, that's good news. But they why did you say it in the first place. However I'm not convinced that your first comment isn't much closer to your gut view, given that time and again you come out with comments that imply that the world and indeed the cosmos revolves around humans. News for you Sriram - they don't.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2022, 09:47:35 AM by ProfessorDavey »

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8312
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2022, 09:54:36 AM »
Then why on earth did you make the following comment:

Quite obviously we are concerned about the effects of over population on human societies....not about its effects on insects, animals and trees (except to the extent it might impact on humans again).

Which clearly implies that we shouldn't concern ourselves about the plight of non human species unless that impacts on humans. I am not argumentative, I am merely challenging your very clear comment - this is what a MB like this is supposed to be all about.

If you don't believe what you said (see above) - fine, that's good news. But they why did you say it in the first place. However I'm not convinced that your first comment isn't much closer to your gut view, given that time and again you come out with comments that imply that the world and indeed the cosmos revolves around humans. News for you Sriram - they don't.


 :D I don't know from where you got the impression that 'I believe that the world revolves around humans'.  We Hindus believe in reincarnation and that humans are just a continuation and a stage of the developmental process. We believe that we have lived previous lives as various animals. 

Be that as it may....we are digressing. You could try commenting about the contents of the article.


ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18010
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2022, 10:19:56 AM »
:D I don't know from where you got the impression that 'I believe that the world revolves around humans'.
Err - from your comments. So in terms of impacts of population on the world you state:

"But having said that, 100 years  ago when the population was just about 2 billion the world was no better. It was in fact worse in terms of the political situation, poverty, health, food supply and so on.

Not sure if the world today is better or worse...!"


In other words seeing whether the world is better or worse today compared to 100 years ago purely in terms of the human species.

And when challenged on this you replied:

"Quite obviously we are concerned about the effects of over population on human societies....not about its effects on insects, animals and trees (except to the extent it might impact on humans again)."

Doubling down on that view - effectively that impact on other species are completely irrelevant unless they also have a secondary impact on humans.

I'm struggling to see how anyone could read those comments and conclude other than you see the world as revolving around humans. You may claim that your religion teaches otherwise, but there is very little evidence for this in your comments which are all about humans and any consideration of other species is only considered through its impact on humans.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18010
Re: 8 billion
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2022, 10:54:28 AM »
Be that as it may....we are digressing.
No were aren't.

You could try commenting about the contents of the article.
I am - given that the whole theme of the article isn't whether it is theoretically possible for x billion humans to exist, but its real-world impact including on the environment and other species. So me challenging you on your highly human-centric approach to what represents 'better' or 'worse' in terms of the world and the impact of population growth is smack on topic and relates absolutely to the article.