Justin brought up an interesting point in another thread. All religious end-of-the-world-type questions aside, will humanity be around in a thousand years? Why or why not? What do you think should be done to ensure the survival of our species amidst the threat of pandemics, nuclear proliferation, possible ELE (Extinction Level Event: think of the classic “bullet through an apple” picture, but with Earth as the apple and a hyperkinetic comet or asteroid as the bullet), etc.
Obviously, we humans have a very difficult time grasping probabilities and planning for disaster based upon those probabilities. Hurricane Katrina was proof enough of that. It seems we have enough difficulty coping with logarithmic math: the population of the planet is already at unprecedented levels, and threatens to double or triple again within the next hundred years. Will we have the resources to sustain this kind of growth? What’s the actual most palpable threat to the survival of the entire race — as a species — within the next hundred-fifty years?
Guidelines:
- Appeals to the Millenium, Rapture, or other unprecedented world-saving supernatural event will result in a mandatory lashing with a warm, dead trout.
- Appeals to some as-yet-unknown scientific invention… see trout note above.
- Although abortion will almost certainly arise in any such discussion, please discuss only as a practical matter, leaving questions of whether it’s “right” or “wrong” out of it. For the sake of argument, assume it’s a neutral thing with only societal ramifications (such as devaluation of infant life).
- I do not have a warm trout handy. A frozen one propelled at high velocity may have to suffice.
Does acknowledging the
Does acknowledging the looming threat of alien invasion count as an appeal to an unprecedented supernatural event?
Naw…
Naw, but instead of slapping you across the face with a warm, dead trout, I slap you across the face with a warm, dead Will Smith in an Air Force costume.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
I’ll Cut and paste..
Here’s what i wrote before..
even if I exctract my religious beliefs.. I think that mankind simply cannot handle the science we have.
I think that we will ourselves render the earth uninhabitable within 150 years. Look at the last hundred.. Weve almost tripled the population, we’re running out of resources, third world tyrranical theocracies are getting nukes, and are willing to use them..
The fact is we are to short sighted. I am reminded of the TNG episode “The inner light” – I think we are looking at our own destruction and worrying more about economy and politics and power to realize “crap!!”
How to save us? (Again, exctracting the rleigious discussion)
1) I agree with matt.. let us spread to other places
2) Beter fuels, less pollution.. tree hugger stuff
3) Stop nuclear proliferation
4) Take a preventitive stance on pandemics
5) Fund humanitarian causes in Africa and the Middle east designed to improve education and building infrastructure.
6) Population control.. at least in terms of educating. People should understand that it is ecologically irresponsible to have large numbers of kids. I don’t think mandatory numbers or prejudice against a third child should be instituted.. but tax breaks should stop at two, and be rescinded after three.. Its simple Math.. if on average every two humans creates three humans.. then approx every 25 years you can multiply the population by 1.5 – That means in 2030 we’re looking at 9 billion and by 2055 we’re looking at 13.5 billion. Scary.
So thats all. Im a peissimist
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Biggest Threats: Genetics then Nanotech
I think the biggest forseeable threats are well within the next century.
Genetic engineering of a super-virus would be the biggest near term threat. Within the next two decades, we’ll have the technology to build virii that bypass our own immune systems.
Shortly thereafter – say around 40-50 years out – we’ll have nanotechnology developed enough to the point that self-replicating nanobots could be the next global threat.
Both technologies also have the promise to greatly enhance and improve human life in ways surpassing anything we’ve seen before in history.
I only hope we are mature and intelligent enough to make it through. We scraped through what appears to be the period of greatest threat regarding nukes, so maybe we’ll get through this as well.
Econ 101
This subject is referred to as the Malthusian Principle in every Econ 101 college class.
When the population to food ratio gets too high ‘something happens,’ in the form of starvation, disease or war, to lower the global population rate. Instead of guessing the cause of the expected population reduction event, economists instead try to estimate the possible timing.
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/malthus.htm
First Priority
The moment it became possible for us to destroy all life on earth our first priority as a species needed to become, preventing that. I think a lot of us critters got caught up in insuring our particular nation state survived, rather then trying to save us all.
I think securing unsecured nuclear material should be the first priority, but that’s just my best guess.
I like the idea of expanding human life to new places. I think for a long time space will remain out of reach, but the ocean floor is quite accessible. No reason we couldn’t start building there, or trying to adapt human life to an aquatic environment 🙂
Unfortunately, I don’t think we can very well predict what will the be the most pressing issue in the next 20, 50 or 100 years. Over population might be it, but I wouldn’t assume so.
I think technology has advanced very quickly in the last few decades, and society is still trying to chew all the technology it’s swallowed. The answer is not to try to slow the rate of technological advance, that would be impossible, and a handicap to whatever society tried it. I think as society continues to adapt to existing, and new technologies (birth control for example), we will see the solutions they provide be applied to more and more people. Since we can’t predict the rate at which this will occur, for specific technologies and specific problems, I think it is too difficult to predict which problems will be most important.
In general, I think we have a greater need right now for societal adaptation and change, then we have for new technologies. Each society, state, region and group of people needs to reevaluate whether it is having a positive, or negative affect on the other societies of the world.
-Mathias Timidi Cono Klast -Broth Rail Gun of the Short Path
Population Boom
MathiasTCK (not verified),
I read yesterday in a reprinted New York Times editorial that the U.S. population is expected to go from 300 Million to 370 Million by 2025 (I think this was the target date, forgive me if I’m wrong). Given the historical rate of U.S. population growth over the past century, a 23% increase in just twenty years is astronomical.
That is overpopulation and a big problem.
Sammy,
Sammy,
I am completely unconvinced that the United States has a significant population problem. What resource is the U.S. going to run out of? We have been over producing food for some time, our capacity for food production is much higher.
Long before the population of the U.S. becomes a problem it would be an unarguable crisis in other parts of the world.
I was under the impression that the U.S. birth rate was relatively stable, and that immigration accounted for the bulk of our population increase, has that changed or was I mistaken?
Scarce Resources
Housing. Livable areas. Construction capacity. Employment. Energy. Affordable Health Care. Subsidized Education. Law enforcement/Judicial process.
The U.S. doesn’t have a significant population problem today. There are many who feel that it will be a huge problem 20-25 years from now, including myself. You already see what’s happening in Southern California, as the population is flying from LA and into the new massive planned communities.
Also, I just wanted you to know that I am somewhat a social leftist, and think it horrible to enact policy that stunts legal immigration. I make these comments based on an economic viewpoint and not one of doing my brother right by taking in the tired-and-poor.
Data, data, data
That’s a nice list, Sam, but I don’t believe it just because you can type it. Are there many who feel the world will be nearly destroyed by overpopulation in 25 years? Yes. Were there many who thought that 25 years ago? Yes. 200 years ago? Yes. Has any “overpopulation will destroy us all” prediction ever come true? Obviously not.
The real question is, can you find any data to suggest that population growth in a free society has ever led to a decrease in quality of life?
I doubt it, but I’m open to proof. My own exhibit A is, of course, America. Population is higher than it’s ever been, and the standard of living is right there with it. People don’t die from cholera, malaria, polio or smallpox. They live in a median house size that is double what it was 30 years ago (housing shortage???). They spend a third of their income on food compared to 50 years ago. GDP per capita in 1998 was 3 times what it was in 1973 (and it’s grown quite a bit since then).
I’m not saying population growth caused this, but I think the burden of proof rests on you to suggest that population growth is detrimental to mankind.
(Be sure to remove factors caused by “social leftist” governments, which tend to enact immoral economic policies, resulting in famines, etc., as populations grow, rather than productivity improvements.)
One final thing to keep in mind: population control is only popular in some circles, and those circles don’t include Muslim extremists. Hate to predict the next dark ages, but the shifting demographics of the world is sobering.
I Don’t Have To Prove Anything
Actually, I don’t have to prove anything. I’m busy. Frankly, I’m not interested in spending an evening pulling together data to change your mind! As I wrote above, the Malthusian doctrine has become a generally accepted princple because it proves true. Over history, when the population to food ratio grows too high, something happens to decimate the population. If you’re interested, I’ve found some more links to the Principle Of Population:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/social/prindex.htm
Population growth isn’t detrimental to mankind, but history suggests that there’s natural corrections that reduce the population.
Scouting
Right–isn’t American Idol on tonight ;)?
Actually
Actually, you and I should start a special blog section on running a small business. The work never ends! Speaking of, back to it…
But the ratio isn’t high now
That’s all great, but the population to food ratio isn’t high. If it was food prices would be a lot higher. We have a much greater capacity to produce food, it just isn’t profitable to do so.
On a side note, you never have to prove anything on a web forum, but if someone asks you to back up what you say, and you decline, you’re kind of giving up the argument arentcha? 😉 How are you going to “win” doing that!
We’re Not Discussing The Present
We’re not discussing the present. We were discussing the future, as written.
Sammy are you claiming we
Sammy are you claiming we will be running out of food or not? All the references to Malthus seem to assume so.
Anyway daniel’s post on another thread of this topic sums up most of the points I was going to make. We have no reason to believe economic forces won’t curtail the population before disaster.
I Am Not
I am not claiming that we will be running out of food. I believe that over the course of the next thousand years that as the population density increases, bad things will happen on a global scale to reduce the population.
This will come in the form of: -disease -war -natural disaster -military genocide -famine -space debris continuing to accumulate and eventually falling out of orbit to earth as lethal fire within the next 50 years, as reported this week by NASA -machines gaining intelligence and starting a war against the son of Sarah Connor
I think the opposite of you in that economic forces are not a reliable, failsafe tool for manipulating population density. History has shown (e.g., Bubonic plague, nuclear weapons, Indian Ocean tsunami) that economic policy doesn’t protect or prevent against terrible pandemics.
I’m a bright and cheery guy.
Then why bring up Malthus?
If you weren’t claiming we will be running out of food, why did you bring up “when the population to food ratio grows too high?” and why is famine on your list?
I totally agree that military genocide is a possibility, that is why securing unsecured nuclear material should be a global priority. I just don’t see what connection you are making between that and population growth.
I’m not gonna argue that bad things won’t happen over the next 1000 years to keep the population down. That’s an absurdly long amount of time to be making predictions about.
Economic forces may not protect against pandemics, but neither does a smaller population. Less traffic amongst the population might protect some, but higher number of people just means a higher number of survivors, more time for the race to respond to a pandemic, and more time for the disease to mutate to a safer form.
I don’t know why you mention the Tsunami, do you believe it was caused by the population level?
I Don’t Understand
I don’t understand why you’re continuing to harp on this subject. Is this some kind of social blog experiment?
I’m betting your response
I’m betting your response means you don’t want to discuss this further, which is fine, but you did ask me a direct question, so I will answer it. No it’s not an experiment, I’m trying to understand and respond to your posts.
If you are asking a larger question like, why have I posted on this subject at all, it’s because I’m interested in the subject and enjoy discussing it.
Tsunami
I think the Asian Tsunami is a useful benchmark: it was the largest loss of life from a single natural disaster in the entire span of human history. Should the population continue to grow at current rates, we can expect to continue having such “record-setting” accidents at both an increasing rate and with increasing numbers of casualties.
Caveat: humans seem to do a much better job killing one another than nature does. The Armenian Genocide took just a couple of years, with nearly 2 million dead, and was used by Hitler to justify ethnic genocide during World War II (sorry for the lengthy quote, but I think context is important):
Usually, it is not that the “population to food ratio grows too high” causes famine, but pestilence, drought, and other natural (and unnatural) disasters cause famine. The Armenian Genocide was largely finished in less than 3 months due to wholesale slaughter by the Turks, but the total population loss is often gauged over a 2-year period as subsequent famine and routine raids killed innumerable Armenians.
(Note: conservative estimates say only 250,000 Armenians died as a part of the genocide; less conservative estimates number it over 2 million. I tend to side with the 1 million + estimate due to my background with Armenians; I understand I’m biased, and intend to remain so.)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Record breaking
Let me represent what I think you’re saying on a smaller scale:
Ergo, it would be better for those 100 people not to exist.
Um…I think some people, especially the 100, would disagree. I’m pretty sure the 10 new casualties would rather have existed than not as well, because we all die eventually (and only the depressed spend the interim wishing they never existed in the first place).
Right there with you on famine, except you left out government coercion. Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Mao’s China, etc. are great examples of people dying from food shortages caused by their governments.
Ergo…
You’re right, except that conclusion… I didn’t say it 🙂 Yes, we’re going to continue experiencing disasters on a more and more epic scale. Is that a good or a bad thing? I guess it’s all relative. If I’m one of the 100 out of that 1000, I’d sure be pissed off about it for the few seconds I have remaining before I drown.
Really, I’d love it if we were spread around to a few more planets. Assuredly, we’d have more and more humans dying every year, but because there was less of a single point of failure, that would be an acceptable risk IMHO. The overall risk to the survival of our species would be reduced by spreading across multiple planets.
Right now, I think population growth is a zero-sum game as far as survival of the species goes. It’s just the way things go. In observing other animals in nature, we see that they follow cycles of boom and bust based upon what they eat. We’re omnivorous, and really good at perfecting methods to make more food, so who knows?
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Let’s colonize the ocean first
I would also love to colonize other planets, but I think it will be a long time before it becomes viable. A much easier goal would be to colonize the greater half of the planet that has no human population, the ocean. The ocean, and it’s floor, are a lot closer, more hospitable, and full of more useful resources then any planet we can reach besides our own.
The space program may be more exciting, but it’s a lot less practical.
We have a winner
Matt has just invoked Godwin’s Law. Congratulations Matt. Here’s your pie.
I almost…
See, I almost mentioned Godwin’s Law in that post! But I knew somebody else had to do it, even though I was playing Six Degrees of Godwin 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Hawking chimes in
I doubt he is relying on Malthus’ food-to-ratio economic indicator as his early warning system, but Stephen Hawking seems to feel humans have no more than 100 years left on the planet, far less than the 1,000 year horizon Matt used to open this thread…
This is NOT a good sign.
The Magnificent Seven
Saw the Magnificent Seven this weekend. Fantastic movie, I highly recommend it. But it had a great story in it, about a man who fell from a ten story building. He talked to himself the whole way down. And people sitting by the windows of the 9th, 8th, 7th, etc. floors heard him say the exact same thing as he passed: “So far, so good.”
HEH..
I remember that joke from the EXCALIBUR comic, like issue 7, Nightcrawler tells it to himself as he falls.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Exhibit A
The problem is, my friend, that unlike 25 million years ago, there is a population crisis.
It took the span of human history to reach 3 billion in the 40s and 50s, and only 60 years to double that.
Look around! In Montgomery County, MD, the area is unrecognizable from 15 years ago. Its not just housing. These people need places to live, schools, places to shop, entertainment, churches, wider roads to deal with heavier traffic, and places to work.. so, everywhere there used to be trees is becoming a minimall or a school, or a planned community. And space is running out. I live in a place that used to be the boonies.. now its hot property, tripling its value in 5 years. Rockville and Bethesda are packed.. and Frederick is growing South.
Now, this is all fine for now. There is still land to be had outlying here, Laytonsville, Burkittsville.. there are still places to grow crops if necessary. But then the problem evolves. If most of us eat red meat (and we do) we need more room for cows. But what happens when civilization wants the property.. farmers move. Fine.. except the environmentalists are pointing out that trees aren’t able to keep up with the o2 demands because theyre being cut down – fine, we find a way to deal with that.
But mark my words.. at the current rate of population growth, urban sprawl will continue at a record pace, and eventually we will find ourselves out of something we really would like to have, like land, or oil, or money, or food.. And you’re right.. War or disease or whatever will take care of some of that.. except.. I DONT WANT WAR OR DISEASE THINNING US OUT!! That may be someone I care about!
As for the population explosion in other parts of the world.. I hear that, and youre right, theres some fear to be had there – especially with the concept of loss of national identity here in the US. (For those of you living in the midwest, its a different world out here now.) So we need to work on our national identity – except that groups like the ACLU will say “Cant say Christian”, “Cant say Straight”, “Cant say English”, “Can’t say Under god” , Capitalism is wrong, Communism is wrong, Religion is wrong, English speaking is wrong, Aspirations of wealth are wrong – yeah, we are a country with no identity because if the identity we had is stripped away for fear it may offend someone. Just a thought.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
A Thought
If we actually managed to get the environment healthy (assuming we have the ability to do so with what little we know of how it really works), do you think the environmentalists would go away? They’d just disband and be happy?
Nope, they’d find another thing to harp about, because they’re a special interest group and have to have a cause to support.
I think that groups that truly strive to better something (be it the environment, race relations, etc, etc) are wonderful, but it seems when they get too big, they start to worry about keeping themselves inbusiness more than helping.
Every one of your environmental concerns I think can be argued against. Pessimism isn’t a healthy outlook. We’ve managed to out-invent most crisis and survice others…we’ll do that again.
And if there is a war or disease, then so be it. I hope as hard as I can my loved ones won’t be affected, but it’s the way the world works. We are arrogant to think we have a handle on the environment and how nature works, but in turth we’ve only carved out a fragile shelter from her desires. Maybe one day we will be wise enough to truly understand nature and shape her actions, but now we’re just monkeys with a sledgehammer.
My $.02 Weed
Luddites among us
True. But that doesn’t mean there’s a crisis. Only that we’ve expanded our capacity (through productivity improvements). When you double the amount in your 401(k) do you fret about a “wealth crisis?”
Progress is great, isn’t it? Would you want the world to look unchanged over time? New York the size of New Amsterdam? A smattering of tribes covering the entire geography of the USA? These people have needs, and they fill them. This notion that there’s some fixed about of roads, housing, jobs that can never expand just baffles me. We’ve added 130 million or so (a doubling, almost) since the 50th state entered the Union, and I don’t see a proportional increase in unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc. Instead I see better health, longer lives, higher personal consumption rates, larger houses–the list goes on. Just because the number is growing doesn’t mean there’s a crisis. A person falling from a building can see the ground coming towards them; no one has ever successfully seen the ground approaching in overpopulation. (Some people may respect Malthus’s theory, particularly when applied to people who lack freedom and protection of natural rights, but it’s never been demonstrated in the West due to some critical errors.)
And, by the mechanisms you go on to discuss, there is no reason to believe it won’t stay fine. If farmland gets scarse, productivity is improved (as has always happened in modern history) or red meat prices go up. (There’s a lot of excess capacity once you stop feeding cows.) Trees will continue to be replanted by industries that rely on them to make money. As fuel prices rise or roads get too congested, people start working from home more (another example of a productivity increase). It’s awesome, really, particularly in its randomness.
A growth rate which is rapidly falling, by the way. The forecasts I find put total world population at shy of 10 billion, then beginning to fall. Scary part, and I think we agree here, is that the falling population will be comprised of enlightened individuals, while the growing share will be increasingly Muslim. (That’s not to say a larger share of Muslims couldn’t mellow out, but the article I referenced above points out that 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah. And I bet enlightened Muslims go easy on the childbearing, too.)
I think people get upset because: 1) 100% growth in 40 years is really, really fast, and 2) 6 billion is a really, really big number. But so what? You only know you have a crisis if you know your limits. And we don’t. It’s like hearing that airplane near-misses have increased 300% in the last year–but wait, from 1 to 4? Or that you have 100,000,000,000,000 bacteria in your gut? Plenty of room for more! We’re only in trouble if productivity gains go away.
On identity, what America will hopefully be left with (although we’ve strayed from this quite a bit) is a respect for natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to be a Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan; if you come from Europe, Russia, or Mexico; if you have normal or novel views on “pleasure;” you will be free to live your life as long as you don’t hamper someone else’s similar freedoms. If you don’t like capitalism, don’t save any money–but you’re not allowed to stop others from buying and selling. If you think your wife should wear a burqa, marry a willing woman–but don’t make mine get in that thing.
That’s an identity I can get behind.
It’s sustainability is another thing entirely…
enlightened individuals?
I have to say, I find concerns about the U.S. being overtaken by foreign people who think foreignly pretty silly. People that immigrate to the U.S. do so because they’d rather be in the U.S. then where ever they were from, which already shows a fondness for the country. Their children will be born and raised here, socialized the same way as other children, probably going to the same public schools.
Besides if the culture of the U.S. wasn’t strong enough to make all who enter it’s boundaries part of it’s culture, nothing can save it. In the struggle of cultures this is a basic requirement necessary for cultural survival, and has been throughout history.
The U.S. has shown the opposite anyway, it has always been a nation composed of enterprising immigrants, or their children. Once in the U.S. these immigrants adopt the best parts of the culture, meanwhile they bring the best parts of their culture (food for example).
At the current rate
If population continues to rise, at the current rate, forever, then it will it produce a graph approaching infinity.
So what? As whatever resource you expect to run out runs out it’s price will rise. In fact a whole lot of other things will change as we actually approach whatever limit you are fearing. This will change the rate of population increase, making that pretty infinite graph you drew irrelevant.
We just aren’t that close to the limit yet, so population is still going up.
It might be better for the world if the population didn’t increase so fast, but right now there isn’t much preventing, or discouraging an increase to the population.
We can all see the population rising and there still seems to be plenty of time to prevent a population size based disaster scenario.
With regards to the U.S. “losing” it’s natural identity, what would that mean? It just disappears in a single generation? That would mean one generation of Americans has no impact on the people left in it’s country.
Whatever it was you feared, the opposite seems to be occurring. The whole world is learning English, (as spoken by Americans) watching Hollywood movies, and listening to the music found on the U.S. charts. That’s kind of the point of being a superpower, you also have super influence.
Besides, the strongest cultures don’t resist immigrants, or their cultures, they embrace and absorb them, as the U.S. always has.
Data to support decrease in quality of life
Not that anyone reads this blog anymore, but I’m like an elephant with memory, and 4 years later I came across some data that I find interesting to give thought to whether population growth in a free society leads to a decrease in the quality of life.
A report has come out from the Southern Education Foundation that states ‘The South’ has become the first region in the USA where more than 50% of public school kids are poor. They define poor as eligible for free lunches. It’s no coincidence (in my opinion) that the second part of this report states that ‘The South’ has become the first region in the USA where more than 50% of public school kids are minorities. Combined, ‘The South’ is the first and only region in the USA to have more than 50% poor and minority students in public schools. As a point of reference, MN’s % of low-income students in public school’s is 33%. (I keep putting ‘The South’ in quotes because of their definition of ‘The South’, not mine, I don’t want to seem like some sort of neo-divisionist).
The reasons given by the report for this increase is population growth. Not white flight. An even with an increase in both expenditure-per-pupil and teacher-to-pupil ratios, the report offers that, “These new developments…constitute perhaps the greatest challenges that the South has faced…they also create the necessity for a profound, unprecedented transformation in Southern education in order for the region to improve its education, quality of life, and economy.” So there’s the implication. Quality of Life.
High-school graduation rates (2006) – Georgia 56%, Florida 58%, Mississippi 61%, Alabama 61% (WI and NJ lead the nation at 82%). I don’t have any historical averages to compare against.
This entire entry is dependent on you believing that education is a critical indicator of quality of life. If you believe that education is a critical asset, as well as a critical resource, and that it is paramount to nurture human capital through education for continued prosperity, then it would seem that population growth not only decreases quality of life but also threatens the future of our free society. And for those of you keeping score, the U.S. population grew by 9% between 2000 and 2009.
This is not the first time in the U.S. that rapid population growth of poor and minorities has happened. You think about all the Irish Catholic immigrants in the 1830s and the European immigrants in the early 1900’s that came over and basically lowered public schooling ratios in their immediate areas. The difference here is that the low-income is very widespread across an entire region. I think it obvious that quick population growth is detrimental to mankind when the resource of education is strained.
The above is just one data point, and it’s not truly relevant to the original thread subject, but it does provide data to suggest that population growth in a free society leads to a decrease in quality of life. The relevance to my original point (something happens when population increases) ties into my listing above of Subsidized Education as an indicator of a scarce resource.
I read…
I read it. I’ve recently thought of just tossing Facebook out as my social-media outlet, and going back to blogging…