It seems like these discussions, even when they use biological terminology like “carrying capacity”, never seem to take biology into account as anything but a static force.
Malthus assumed that agriculture only increased production arithmetically, something that the Green Revolution disproves as it continues to increase crop yields and the percentage of arable land worldwide much faster than our population has grown. And it’s not exactly like we were in danger of hitting our upper limits before; even in the US you can see overgrown fallow fields with just a short drive out from a city (our tax dollars at work, courtesy of generous farm subsidies meant to keep food expensive), while most of the world’s farmers have been so thoroughly out-competed by food aid that they cannot afford the technology to use their fields efficiently. Even the fresh water crisis is only a temporary problem; we are even now developing plants and irrigation methods which can use salty and even contaminated water as effectively as old freshwater irrigation ever did.
Agriculture provides food raw materials (even plastics) and energy, with modern technology it is almost completely renewable, and our agricultural capability is expanding far faster than our population is. Obviously there are hard limits on how many people the earth can support, but it is a theoretical discussion on the level of how long we have until the sun collapses or the heat death of the universe occurs. The politics of population reduction are not, and never have been, about resource preservation.
“with modern technology it is almost completely renewable”
This illustrates precisely what I’m trying to say. The reason we haven’t experienced a Malthusian Crunch is not that the concept itself is impossible or absurd, but because we develop new technologies fast enough to continually postpone it.
This has some implications:
If technological development is derailed by cultural backlash, prolonged recession, or political lunacy, we may find ourselves having to cope with population overshoot on top of whatever the original problem was.
Responsible global citizens need to defend and promote technological progress with every bit of the same zeal they currently have for the natural environment.
Extrapolations of continued technological progress based on past performance are inherently unreliable. So if our extrapolations of not having to worry about overshoot are in effect extrapolations of extrapolations about technological progress, then those extrapolations are themselves not reliable and we cannot afford complacency.
Obviously there are hard limits on how many people the earth can support, but it is a theoretical discussion on the level of how long we have until the sun collapses or the heat death of the universe occurs.
I don’t really think this is true. Exponential growth can put up some very high numbers very fast. At 2010 growth rates, humanity should be in the quadrillions within mere centuries. In contrast, sun changes should not make earth uninhabitable for millions of years at least.
Maybe the question to population deniers should be framed as:
What upper and lower bounds do you place on the hard limits of how many humans the planet can support indefinitely?
What upper and lower bounds do you place on the rate at which technological progress pushes the practically achievable limits toward the hard limits above?
What upper and lower bounds on future world population levels given that the current number is 7 billion?
From this we can then derive at least a self-consistent probability that overpopulation deniers should assign to Malthusian Crunch.
It seems like these discussions, even when they use biological terminology like “carrying capacity”, never seem to take biology into account as anything but a static force.
Malthus assumed that agriculture only increased production arithmetically, something that the Green Revolution disproves as it continues to increase crop yields and the percentage of arable land worldwide much faster than our population has grown. And it’s not exactly like we were in danger of hitting our upper limits before; even in the US you can see overgrown fallow fields with just a short drive out from a city (our tax dollars at work, courtesy of generous farm subsidies meant to keep food expensive), while most of the world’s farmers have been so thoroughly out-competed by food aid that they cannot afford the technology to use their fields efficiently. Even the fresh water crisis is only a temporary problem; we are even now developing plants and irrigation methods which can use salty and even contaminated water as effectively as old freshwater irrigation ever did.
Agriculture provides food raw materials (even plastics) and energy, with modern technology it is almost completely renewable, and our agricultural capability is expanding far faster than our population is. Obviously there are hard limits on how many people the earth can support, but it is a theoretical discussion on the level of how long we have until the sun collapses or the heat death of the universe occurs. The politics of population reduction are not, and never have been, about resource preservation.
“the Green Revolution disproves”
“the technology to use their fields efficiently”
“developing plants and irrigation methods”
“with modern technology it is almost completely renewable”
This illustrates precisely what I’m trying to say. The reason we haven’t experienced a Malthusian Crunch is not that the concept itself is impossible or absurd, but because we develop new technologies fast enough to continually postpone it.
This has some implications:
If technological development is derailed by cultural backlash, prolonged recession, or political lunacy, we may find ourselves having to cope with population overshoot on top of whatever the original problem was.
Responsible global citizens need to defend and promote technological progress with every bit of the same zeal they currently have for the natural environment.
Extrapolations of continued technological progress based on past performance are inherently unreliable. So if our extrapolations of not having to worry about overshoot are in effect extrapolations of extrapolations about technological progress, then those extrapolations are themselves not reliable and we cannot afford complacency.
I don’t really think this is true. Exponential growth can put up some very high numbers very fast. At 2010 growth rates, humanity should be in the quadrillions within mere centuries. In contrast, sun changes should not make earth uninhabitable for millions of years at least.
Yes, exactly.
Maybe the question to population deniers should be framed as:
What upper and lower bounds do you place on the hard limits of how many humans the planet can support indefinitely?
What upper and lower bounds do you place on the rate at which technological progress pushes the practically achievable limits toward the hard limits above?
What upper and lower bounds on future world population levels given that the current number is 7 billion?
From this we can then derive at least a self-consistent probability that overpopulation deniers should assign to Malthusian Crunch.