.
And some feel that these technological improvements will continue to keep pace with population, others feel we begin to hit points of diminishing returns.
Also, another point is that the production of food has largely been proportional with the available labor, if we include ‘fossil fuels’ are part of that labor. and they are finite.
there is of course always hope for superfusion, or similar, which would again delay a malthusian scenario (maybe)
In particular, the production of food does not increase proportionally with the available labor and other means, because of continually improving technological improvements.
yes, it is a working assumption that we will remain earthbound.
I disagree with that assumption. Unlike you, however, I think that the earth’s population is still far below its economic optimum and that we may therefore be talking about a problem centuries in the future. In addition, I don’t think the world population will continue to grow at its current rate, particularly as we approach or pass that optimum point.
Given the fact that the US governement is still paying farmers to take land out of production, I would have to guess that actual production of food at this point is not close to being a problem. Food distribution and the use of food as a weapon or war will always be an issue for some localities.
And I don’t think it will be an issue, at least for quite long time. What I think is a more likely sequence of events though is that climate shift will help correct any population issues we may have.
Our current society is based on the climate being exactly as it has been for the last 150 years. Whether or not you believe the science around human driven global climate change, one thing we know from history is that the eath’s climate is rarely stable. Some times these shifts happen fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/...ature_Comparison.png
Temperature shifts, rainfall shifts and our trend towards using very limited varieties of crops could easily bring a crash of food production. Then, voila, no one has to tell anyone to stop reproducing.
We have a definite arrogance that modern people can easily fix any climate or disease issues. As our good friends in Proverbs 16:18 tell us, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
I disagree with that assumption.
I’ll drop planetary colonization as impossible as a working assumption once we colonize the gobi desert.
Unlike you, however, I think that the earth’s population is still far below its economic optimum
and that we may therefore be talking about a problem centuries in the future.
what sort of napkin math leads you to that conclusion?
In addition, I don’t think the world population will continue to grow at its current rate, particularly as we approach or pass that optimum point.
I agree with you there.
Given the fact that the US governement is still paying farmers to take land out of production
and at the same time the us government pays farmers to put it IN production. and we go into debt to import enough energy to sustain our economy as a whole. not sure we can conclude anything from current farm subsidy laws
Then, voila, no one has to tell anyone to stop reproducing.
right, at the cost of bunch of people dying who may not have needed to.
what sort of napkin math leads you to that conclusion?
I think I pointed out earlier in the thread that it’s not a matter of math.
What does influence my thinking is the fact that technological advance shows no signs of slowing.
right, now include the support system needed to keep those people alive.
the water resevoirs
the mines
the farms
the waste processing
the city of london has a much bigger footprint than
the city itself.
furthermore while we could CLEARLY pack people into cubicles and feed them on energetically optimum vegetarian nutrient paste, and support much larger world populations, I’m not sure anyone wants to live that way =)
None? Consider space exploration:
We landed men on the moon in the 1960s
Since then…a few robots on mars, a telescope in orbit.
We can’t summon the funds to put a couple men on mars. Terraforming a planet seems a long shot.
What does influence my thinking is the fact that technological advance shows no signs of slowing.
Obviously if population continued to grow at the current rate, at some point there would be a hunger problem.
Why? What if we continue to be more efficient at raising food than the rate of population growth? Thus we can keep up with population growth using the same amount of resources we currently are.
and it would take us a few years to adjust.
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of starvation. I’ve yet to see anyone that can go “A couple years” without food or water.
In short if we REALLY hit the limits those with only the resources they need to survive WILL NOT give those resources up to save someone else. They will die.
The only time this will not happen is in the case that “The others” have the power to take what they need to survive…and people will die in that process as well.
It’s kinda simple. Throw food into a box of rats and the population goes up…throw less food in and the population goes down…don’t put any food in and the population quickly goes to zero.
~Matt
We landed men on the moon in the 1960s
Uhhh…yeah, haven’t gone back because we found the Transformers space ship and we don’t want the people of Earth to know about the Decepticons…sheeesh!
~Matt
no movie trailer has ever made me more angry than that movie trailer
"omg omg a movie about the moon landing cool! oh shit even better its historical fiction about us finding something on the dark side! this is gonna rule!
OH…SON OF A BITCH"
We landed men on the moon in the 1960s
Uhhh…yeah, haven’t gone back because we found the Transformers space ship and we don’t want the people of Earth to know about the Decepticons…sheeesh!
~Matt
Could you have imagined something like the Lavender Room in the 1960s?
I think it is time to bring out the big guns on this topic–the people who have been thought leaders and visionaries.
This issue of starvation has already been addressed by some of the most brilliant minds the earth has ever known–resident LR geniuses, notwithstanding.
I present to you Dr. Kinison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao
“I’m like anyone else on this planet – I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed. I watch those kids and I go, ‘Fuck, I know the FILM crew could give this kid a sandwich!’ There’s a director five feet away going, ‘DON’T FEED HIM YET! GET THAT SANDWICH OUTTA HERE! IT DOESN’T WORK UNLESS HE LOOKS HUNGRY!!!’ But I’m not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Don’t send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something, you want to help? Send them U-Hauls. Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, 'Hey, we been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA – WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, ASSHOLES!”
–From an appearance on Rodney Dangerfield’s “It’s Not Easy Being Me,” 1984.
**
**
Could you have imagined something like the Lavender Room in the 1960s?
no, I was not alive.
but the lavendar room does not address terraforming =)
"and at the same time the us government pays farmers to put it IN production. and we go into debt to import enough energy to sustain our economy as a whole. not sure we can conclude anything from current farm subsidy laws "
But a lot of the talk around current ability to produce food seems to come around the notion that we do not have enough land to do it. I look at that the same way I look at people who used to say the way to solve homelessness was to build houses on golf courses, as if the reason people were homeless was because there wasn’t enough vacant lots in cities to build housing.
Land isn’t the issue. I can see how water, primarily around irrigation, could get to be a major issue, especially if precipitation patterns were to change.
“right, at the cost of bunch of people dying who may not have needed to.”
I think people dying was included in the “voila”. I guess my thinking goes towards the direction where people won’t see this as an issue until it becomes a catastrophe. And then you have to tap into Chainpin’s reserves to feed the world (I hope he has stockpiled some flour as well as silver and gold because that would be some crusty bread otherwise).
My hope is that I am not here to see it. There are lots of ways the population can be cut by a third, I doubt the Europeans in the mid 14th century thought 30 - 60% would be dead in the next 10 years.
I’m not a botanist or anything (Idiocracy reference)
But I do know that “land” isn’t that simple. Theres plenty of unused land if you ignore
soil fertility
weather
water
and of course if you ignore the fact that perhaps the earths ecosystems would not function properly if every square inch of land was either farm or city.
plus, many of us would not LIKE it to be that way =)
First off, I wouldn’t necessarily say that we have a population problem, we have a consumption problem. That said, they are intrinsically tied together, and even as population growth winds down, per capita consumption rates increase staggeringly.
I’ve been worried about this problem for years and am always stumped by how to motivate the masses (myself included) to fight their genetics by having less kids? The most “polite” way of trimming the crop isn’t killing off folks, it’s a massive reduction in the next generation. Hopefully the world has the peak capacity to swallow the new demand.
It’s even possible to have negative population growth with two children per couple - all you have to do is start having children later. Negative growth is the result of some amount of mortality in the population before reproducing.
Agreed, but there are negative outcomes with older-age parents as well. Everything is a compromise.
That said, getting developing nations to have kids at 25 instead of 18 would help_a_lot. Then again, the developing nation kids aren’t the resource problem. It’s yours and my kids. (figuratively speaking, of course)