Originally Posted by healthsci1

An explanation may come from basic economics theories. In the past pessimists had held the idea that through over population the humans would not be able to meet the demands of nutrition resulting in the demise of its populous. The problem with the economists of the past were that they underestimated the likelihood of technological advancement. We are now able to produce large amounts of outputs with little inputs. So i guess, as the population increases and as it approaches carrying capacity we will become more efficient with our management of our natural resources, land, production etc.

Thanks. I appreciate it when people give a solid backing to their statements instead of leaving it at "that's BS"

Originally Posted by healthsci1

An explanation may come from basic economics theories. In the past pessimists had held the idea that through over population the humans would not be able to meet the demands of nutrition resulting in the demise of its populous. The problem with the economists of the past were that they underestimated the likelihood of technological advancement. We are now able to produce large amounts of outputs with little inputs. So i guess, as the population increases and as it approaches carrying capacity we will become more efficient with our management of our natural resources, land, production etc.

The concept of problem of overpopulation is not that we will not be able to meet the nutritional requirements and resources demands right now. The problem lies in long-term sustainability. Our best minds estimate that the world can only sustain 2-3 billion people in the long term and that is if we clean up the way we do things. Anymore than this causes irreparable harm to the planet that will lead to the planet not being able to support as many people. You have to consider problems brought about by the use of non-renewable resources and problems with global warming. We are already seeing the effects of global warming that we wouldn't with only 2 billion people, no imagine you live to be 150 and there are now 30billion people. It doesn't matter how nice your farming techniques are when a large portion of the planet has become inhospitable for life and/or submerged. Also imagine what we are going to do after we exhaust viable hydrocarbon supplies. We'll need to use biofuels more and and more and that'll cut a huge amount into our food supply. Keep in mind that 1 acre of corn fields = 158.6 bushels =439 gallons of ethanol = the average annual fuel consumption per 2.5 people. You could either feed a lot of people, or drive to work and back a few times.

To try to sink in why this is a problem lets do some math. The highest UN estimate for world population in 2100 is 14,500,000,000 which is twice our present population. That alone is bad enough. Now if introduce a pill to extend life by roughly 70 years. we can ignore roughly 30% of first world deaths that would have occurred without the pill. I'm going to estimate that this causes 1 billion more people to survive on top of the 14.5 billion. With an average first world carbon footprint of 12.4 tonnes of Co2 and Co2 equivalent a year that's an extra 12.4 billion tonnes of CO2 to help speed up global warming (for reference that is roughly twice what the USA generates in a year presently). This will lead to land lost to the sea, which is a problem considering what percentage of the world lives near water. Also when temperatures get high enough many of the crops we grow will no longer become viable unless we seriously beef up genetic alterations on all our food soon.


TL;DR Anyone who believes overpopulation is not a problem has little foresight. While we may not see the immediate problems of overpopulation within our lifetime, it's certainly going to be a huge issue down the road. Saying overpopulation is BS because we'll be able to feed everyone is akin to saying 'Global warming is BS 'cause we still have winter!' it shows you don't understand the problem at all.

EDIT: on the note of overpopulation and the prospect of feeding everyone: "Soylent green is PEOPLE!!!" kudos to anyone who gets the reference.

Originally Posted by AelyaS

Thanks. I appreciate it when people give a solid backing to their statements instead of leaving it at "that's BS"

My bad. I didn't feel like writing an essay here.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

Our best minds estimate that the world can only sustain 2-3 billion people in the long term and that is if we clean up the way we do things. Anymore than this causes irreparable harm to the planet that will lead to the planet not being able to support as many people.

Proof or it didn't happen. Who are these 'best minds' and what do they base this 'irreparable harm' on? Now I was under the impression that the planet has regenerative/balancing tendencies, e.g. as Co2 levels go up, plants bloom more rapidly, as temperature goes up glaciers melt to cool it, etc.

Now I'm not claiming this is all 'indefinite' (e.g. if we nuke and shatter the entire planet to bits, obviously that goes out the window, and if the glaciers melt entirely, etc. etc.), but the definition of 'irreparable harm' is definitely called into question here.

You have to consider problems brought about by the use of non-renewable resources and problems with global warming. We are already seeing the effects of global warming that we wouldn't with only 2 billion people, no imagine you live to be 150 and there are now 30billion people.

The problem with this argument is that it does not necessarily follow that longevity implies a higher population. It likely will, but if as you say there is a definite carrying capacity, then for one reason or another the population simply won't go that high. One thing I'm noticing that may institute a population decline is the fact that people simply hate having kids these days. Abortion rates, the death of the nuclear family, chemical sterility etc. all constitute factors that need to be considered.

Also imagine what we are going to do after we exhaust viable hydrocarbon supplies. We'll need to use biofuels more and and more and that'll cut a huge amount into our food supply. Keep in mind that 1 acre of corn fields = 158.6 bushels =439 gallons of ethanol = the average annual fuel consumption per 2.5 people. You could either feed a lot of people, or drive to work and back a few times.

Or, we'll discover some new technology, don't forget that possibility. Not to sound like a complete nerd, but Star Trek has some viable technological ideas... The concept of going at 'warp speed' is hypothetically possible if we could harness anti-matter as a fuel...problem is we can't find a 'container' for it, since anti-matter 'explodes*' when it comes in contact with matter. We'd need some sort of 'magnetic chamber' to hold it, which is exactly what the 'warpdrive' from star trek claims to do.

*(into gamma rays. Note that wherever I've put quotations, I'm using these words as inaccurate, but intuitive analogies)

If you're interested in this model (and to see I'm not just spouting hot air), check out the Alcubierre Warp Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

Now that's dealing specifically with 'space travel' but energy is energy. If we could make anti-matter generators, then it's bye bye fossil fuels.

Heck now that I think of it, what's to say we won't populate Mars by 2100?

To try to sink in why this is a problem lets do some math. The highest UN estimate for world population in 2100 is 14,500,000,000 which is twice our present population.
...

As mentioned above, estimating anything 100 years in the future has an arbitrarily small probability of being correct. There are far too many variables to consider, and no one is claiming to consider them all (which is necessary for a good estimate).

This is the problem with science/scientists these days (and why snooty mathematicians can feel superior :p). Half of them agree on the hypothesis that science is changing, and half agree that it is unchanging (e.g. can be extrapolated). Like evolution (science is unchanging and we can extrapolate back) and the Big Bang (science is changing, and we can't estimate back all the way), probably the two biggest examples I can think of.

TL;DR Anyone who believes overpopulation is not a problem has little foresight.

Careful when you make statements like this. I could make the same claim about someone who believes overpopulation is a problem.

Person 1:"You haven't considered all the variables. Technology will win."
Person 2:"You haven't considered all the variables. Technology will lose and overpopulation will dominate."

Who's correct? If we use inductive reasoning (which is actually a logical fallacy in this case**), science has prevailed many many times in the past, over disease and so forth. We would place faith in technology wouldn't we? But who's right? We'll have to wait and see.

**(A story for another time)

EDIT: on the note of overpopulation and the prospect of feeding everyone: "Soylent green is PEOPLE!!!" kudos to anyone who gets the reference.

*Charlton Heston being dragged away*

Thanks for the educated reply. It's not often you can have an educated debate anymore.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Proof or it didn't happen. Who are these 'best minds' and what do they base this 'irreparable harm' on? Now I was under the impression that the planet has regenerative/balancing tendencies, e.g. as Co2 levels go up, plants bloom more rapidly, as temperature goes up glaciers melt to cool it, etc.

Now I'm not claiming this is all 'indefinite' (e.g. if we nuke and shatter the entire planet to bits, obviously that goes out the window, and if the glaciers melt entirely, etc. etc.), but the definition of 'irreparable harm' is definitely called into question here.

I'll admit irreparable is a poor choice of word, but I'm still stuck at a loss for a better one. You are correct in assuming that earth has regenerative properties, and that is where the statistic of 2-3billion people comes from. The estimate is that world can only handle the CO2 generated by 2-3 billion people and any CO2 beyond that builds up and causes global warming. if you consider that we are observing global warming this is not such a hard statistic to believe.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

The problem with this argument is that it does not necessarily follow that longevity implies a higher population. It likely will, but if as you say there is a definite carrying capacity, then for one reason or another the population simply won't go that high. One thing I'm noticing that may institute a population decline is the fact that people simply hate having kids these days. Abortion rates, the death of the nuclear family, chemical sterility etc. all constitute factors that need to be considered.

The introduction of this drug will not stop families from having children, so birth rates remain somewhat constant (they are slightly decreasing as you have mentioned but not by a heck of a lot) However with life expanded ~70 years there will be a span of ~ 70 years with a huge reduction in the death rate. In this time frame where death rates<<birth rates the population will effectively double. Doubling the first world population within 80 years seems like a big deal to me To even maintain the present population birthrates would have to be halved, which brings an average of ~0.5-0.8 children per family(taken from statistics from many countries), which does not seem reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Or, we'll discover some new technology, don't forget that possibility. Not to sound like a complete nerd, but Star Trek has some viable technological ideas... The concept of going at 'warp speed' is hypothetically possible if we could harness anti-matter as a fuel...problem is we can't find a 'container' for it, since anti-matter 'explodes*' when it comes in contact with matter. We'd need some sort of 'magnetic chamber' to hold it, which is exactly what the 'warpdrive' from star trek claims to do.

*(into gamma rays. Note that wherever I've put quotations, I'm using these words as inaccurate, but intuitive analogies)

If you're interested in this model (and to see I'm not just spouting hot air), check out the Alcubierre Warp Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)

Now that's dealing specifically with 'space travel' but energy is energy. If we could make anti-matter generators, then it's bye bye fossil fuels.

Heck now that I think of it, what's to say we won't populate Mars by 2100?

You're entirely right about the use of anti-matter as a source of viable power. however since anti-matter reactions generate so much power it can only be used on large scales, such as electricity for whole countries. It does nothing to alleviate the fuel consumption associated with vehicles and we'll be needing more and more vehicles, especially large construction vehicles, in the future.

As for the warp drive. if you read through the article you'll find that there are numerous issues with it's actual construction and operation that make it's creation exceedingly unlike to ever occur, especially not in the next 100 years. Furthermore, to inhabit mars we would need to terraform it, which I imagine would take decades to centuries and we can only begin the terraforming once we have the warp drive. So even assuming the warp drive does get constructed (which would be awesome!) We're still going to be stuck here on earth for a really long time.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

As mentioned above, estimating anything 100 years in the future has an arbitrarily small probability of being correct. There are far too many variables to consider, and no one is claiming to consider them all (which is necessary for a good estimate).

This is the problem with science/scientists these days (and why snooty mathematicians can feel superior :p). Half of them agree on the hypothesis that science is changing, and half agree that it is unchanging (e.g. can be extrapolated). Like evolution (science is unchanging and we can extrapolate back) and the Big Bang (science is changing, and we can't estimate back all the way), probably the two biggest examples I can think of.

A fairly good point, however it doesn't really refute my argument well and I'll explain why. Even if population ends up increasing at a much slower rate and we end up at ~9 billion (the moderate UN estimate) or remains fairly constant (lowest UN estimate) those numbers are assuming the present death rates. If we consider the people that won't die due to the effective use of the anti-aging pill we still have an roughly an extra billion people alive who should be dead adding more than 2 USA's worth of CO2 per year. This is only assuming the first world countries have access to the drug. With world-wide access this number jumps to roughly 5 billion contributing roughly 3 USA's worth of CO2 a year. if we add these number to the estimates, population growth because inevitable if this drug is implemented.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Careful when you make statements like this. I could make the same claim about someone who believes overpopulation is a problem.

Person 1:"You haven't considered all the variables. Technology will win."
Person 2:"You haven't considered all the variables. Technology will lose and overpopulation will dominate."

Who's correct? If we use inductive reasoning (which is actually a logical fallacy in this case**), science has prevailed many many times in the past, over disease and so forth. We would place faith in technology wouldn't we? But who's right? We'll have to wait and see.

**(A story for another time)

Now I'll admit my claim is a poor choice of words but I'll stand by it using the following logic: More people means more CO2 emissions and therefore increased global warming. Global warming is happening and it is a problem, this is scientific fact. Therefore denying that overpopulation is a problem is to deny that global warming is a problem, and thus deny scientific fact. Nothing in this claim is really arguable.

While technology does how the answer to many of the problems presented by overpopulation it doesn't deal with all of them, particularly those associated with global warming. For example, global warming causes rising sea levels and drop in inland water levels. the vast majority of the world's farmlands are located near the ocean or on fertile river floodplains. This means that with enough global warming we lose the viability of almost all our farmland, as seaside farmland is now submerged and floodplain farmland lacks water for irrigation. Also since a large portion of the world lives by the sea, when the water level rises there is going to be a mass exodus of people inland that will need new houses. This will result in massive deforestation for building supplies, among other issues. It really doesn't matter how nice our science is, there are some things that are not reasonably avoided.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

*Charlton Heston being dragged away*

Kudos, mate. I didn't think anyone would get that.

Originally Posted by JEFF_CHAN

i believe professor farnsworth was 160... or is... or will be in the future... i dunno

Originally Posted by AelyaS

Not gonna lie, I think it's weird. Why mess with the natural order of things? Aging is inevitable, and it doesn't have to be gross. Lots of people age gracefully

Almost everything we do messes with the natural order of things :/

This reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRnp4UPI-Qk

I've gone back and modified my response because it deviates far too much from the topic at hand. e.g. "Global warming: fact or fiction" "Scientific truth vs. scientific consensus" and the scientific method in general. I'm not intending to start any spin-off debates here (while I'm not opposed to the discussion, it's a very bad time of year to have such time consuming discussions).

Perhaps we can reconvene here in a few weeks when we're on Christmas Break.

In the responses below, note that I am not stating my specific stance on any of these issues, and am simply trying to occupy a neutral standpoint (e.g. skeptical and demanding verification of anything and everything). There are some assumptions you're making, rather critical ones, which I'd like to point out (without shutting down your viewpoint if possible).

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

I'll admit irreparable is a poor choice of word, but I'm still stuck at a loss for a better one. You are correct in assuming that earth has regenerative properties, and that is where the statistic of 2-3billion people comes from. The estimate is that world can only handle the CO2 generated by 2-3 billion people and any CO2 beyond that builds up and causes global warming. if you consider that we are observing global warming this is not such a hard statistic to believe.

The problem is that this is a very big if...and the word believe is really at the heart of the matter. In order to address this I'd have to go on a large tangent: "Blind faith in Science."

And believe me when I say I'm not trying to call your beliefs or scientific expertise into question here. I'm merely suggesting that it's not as easy to 'take the plunge' and believe in global warming so faithfully as you clearly do. Many intelligent scientists strongly oppose the notion of global warming (some as drastically as to suggest we're in a state of global cooling) and they do so for a reason. The difference is in what your opinion, and other scientists' opinions are of them...and how numerous they are**.

**But at the same time, remember that it only took one man to change the universe...the earth now goes around the sun.

The introduction of this drug will not stop families from having children, so birth rates remain somewhat constant (they are slightly decreasing as you have mentioned but not by a heck of a lot) However with life expanded ~70 years there will be a span of ~ 70 years with a huge reduction in the death rate.

Actually birth rates are dropping quite a bit...it all depends on your perspective. Compare the 'baby booming' 1920-30's ish to now. Canada's birth rate is actually growing, but this is an anomaly (because immigration is on the rise in Canada). The average family went from 4 children in 1920 to 2 in 1990* to something like 1.2 in 2008. In an absolute sense, the birth rate is remaining constant...but given the number of families is larger, the number of children 'per family' is actually declining. After enough generations of families only having 1 child each (or none), the population will actually start to shrink...because 1 is being born for every 2 parents.

*Haven't looked up the statistic this time but I have in the past...my years might be slightly off. But at any rate, I think you can see my point even if the numbers are fudged a bit.

Now again, I'm not predicting the future, my whole premise is that you can't accurately predict what will happen. But if the trend continues, it does seem as though it will naturally decline. In mathematical linguo, this 'estimate' made by the UN assumes the 'rate of growth of the birth rate' will remain constant. In actual fact, it's this '2nd derivative' that is actually dropping...the curve is logistic, as opposed to exponential (though in the short run, a logistic curve can look an awful lot like an exponential).

In this time frame where death rates<<birth rates the population will effectively double. Doubling the first world population within 80 years seems like a big deal to me To even maintain the present population birthrates would have to be halved, which brings an average of ~0.5-0.8 children per family(taken from statistics from many countries), which does not seem reasonable to me.

I kind of want to draw this into question too. The technology/pill is not invented yet, but given my limited knowledge of human physiology, the number of eggs a woman has is constant and decreases every month. Even if a woman lives to be twice the current 'natural age' how do you rationalize 'doubling' the population? A woman will still go barren after approximately 40 years of 'reproductive time.'

Also if 2 parents have any fewer than 2 children the birth rate is in a state of recession (if you count by generations). If each family has 0.5 children, this will approximately* cut the population into 1/4 after a full generation.

*this is ignoring other factors like adoption.

You're entirely right about the use of anti-matter as a source of viable power. etc.

My point wasn't about the Alcubierre drive specifically (and simply linked it as an interesting read), it's essentially no different than the whole 'going faster than the speed of light means you go backwards in time' thing. "Mathematically" it works out, but sometimes Math and Reality don't get along.

Instead my point was that things which 'seem' impossible, even to modern scientists/experts in the field can change with a simple idea.

A fairly good point, however it doesn't really refute my argument well and I'll explain why. Even if population ends up increasing at a much slower rate and we end up at ~9 billion (the moderate UN estimate) or remains fairly constant (lowest UN estimate) those numbers are assuming the present death rates.

I'm not sure I see how that fails to refute your argument...it's based on extrapolating current data (which is almost certainly inaccurate, even in 'small' approximations, let alone 90 years). Even your 'conservative numbers' are predictions which as my previous post mentioned, are questionable. How do you know 'conservative' is conservative enough? What if I'm right above, and the population shrinks after 10 years when all the boomers die off, and having kids isn't 'trendy'?

While technology does how the answer to many of the problems presented by overpopulation it doesn't deal with all of them, particularly those associated with global warming.

Let's put it this way, in 100,000 years, can you be certain that science won't have an answer/solution to the problems you've listed? If not, that's your own opinion (and what if we make the time period even longer? Does it change?)...but if so, then the answer 'exists' and is discovered sometime in those years. When? Can you say it's not in the next 90 years? With absolute certainty?

This is my point. While you believe the contrary (as evidenced by your opinions) you don't have much to base it on besides 'how things are going.' But as I've pointed out, trends, and even 'scientific fact' can change rather abruptly.