Optimum Human Population, your thoughts

[bobhikes]

From Wilkapedia

The optimal world population has been estimated by a team co-authored by Paul R. Ehrlich.[6] End-targets in this estimation included:

• Decent wealth and resources to everyone
• Basic human rights to everyone
• Preservation of cultural diversity
• Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity
• Preservation of biodiversity

Based on this, the estimation of optimum population was to be roughly around 1.5 billion to 2 billion people.

I was thinking that maybe some of our current problems are due to overpopulation and that technology advances are actually hurting us by not allowing human deaths. Curious as to what others think and what if anything should be done.

I be replying and posting my thoughts as I gather them.

 

[bobhikes]

The years when the estimated world population fell into the optimum population.

1927--------2,000,000,000
1900--------1,600,000,000

from-- World Population by Year - Worldometers

 

[Politesse]

I have long felt that a person whose best and most creative solution to human problems is to kill people may not be the best source of advice when it comes to true human flourishing. Slaughtering away our problems has been the primary strategy of empires the world over for millennia, and it has yet to really work.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not only Paul Ehrlich but also lots of geologists and other scientists from different parts of the world say that overpopulation will lead to the destruction of all the Earth ecosystems. Not because of lack of space, but because of overexploitation of resources. It's also true that looking at this map, it is clear that it's not something that depends on Westerners.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/World_net_birth_rate_2007.png

 

[bobhikes]

I have long felt that a person whose best and most creative solution to human problems is to kill people may not be the best source of advice when it comes to true human flourishing. Slaughtering away our problems has been the primary strategy of empires the world over for millennia, and it has yet to really work.

No one is recommending killing people. It is a statistical view of the optimum population of the earth. It can be used to look at current problems, future problems and development of future plans.

 

[icehorse]

A couple of thoughts:

- there is clearly some upper limit, that's just math.
- my intuition is that even if we could sustain, say 20 billion people, we'd be happier with fewer.
- I don't see the huge tragedy if a few generations can have only 1 or 2 kids per family.

- i'd say that the optimum number should not exceed our aquifers' ability to sustain themselves indefinitely.

 

[Politesse]

No one is recommending killing people. It is a statistical view of the optimum population of the earth. It can be used to look at current problems, future problems and development of future plans.

Eliminating 5 billion already living people can only be accomplished through mass murder.

 

[bobhikes]

Eliminating 5 billion already living people can only be accomplished through mass murder.

It is an Optimum number. Like the optimum amount of water you can drink. You can drink less water or you can drink more water but each will create different challenges.

For example rather than killing off the population perhaps all the worlds economy's should add a percentage of income for scientific discovery of habitable off-world settlements. Where people can leave to live by choice. Similar to early continental travel.

 

[Politesse]

It is an Optimum number. Like the optimum amount of water you can drink. You can drink less water or you can drink more water but each will create different challenges.

For example rather than killing off the population perhaps all the worlds economy's should add a percentage of income for scientific discovery of habitable off-world settlements. Where people can leave to live by choice. Similar to early continental travel.

Well, I guess I did complain about a lack of creativity...

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I did a summer internship with Paul Ehrlich at Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in 1991. We never had a conversation about human population biology. It was all ornithological.

My own thoughts are that it is a pressing problem and will eventually implode the human race. In that it is similar to global climate change, but the decisions that must be made, if we are going to do something, are much more difficult because we are talking of individual human lives and rights, as opposed to primarily economic growth and corporate profits.

The simplest thing to do might be to implant birth control into every child. There would be no unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Anyone that wanted a child and could have some measure to provide for the child could have one, but it would have to be planned.

There might also be a cap on the number of children.

What politician would commit suicide by proposing such measures?

 

[David1967]

Not only Paul Ehrlich but also lots of geologists and other scientists from different parts of the world say that overpopulation will lead to the destruction of all the Earth ecosystems. Not because of lack of space, but because of overexploitation of resources.

Cant argue with this. The evidence speaks for itself. Question is, what do we do about it?

 

[bobhikes]

I did a summer internship with Paul Ehrlich at Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in 1991. We never had a conversation about human population biology. It was all ornithological.

My own thoughts are that it is a pressing problem and will eventually implode the human race. In that it is similar to global climate change, but the decisions that must be made, if we are going to do something, are much more difficult because we are talking of individual human lives and rights, as opposed to primarily economic growth and corporate profits.

The simplest thing to do might be to implant birth control into every child. There would be no unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Anyone that wanted a child and could have some measure to provide for the child could have one, but it would have to be planned.

There might also be a cap on the number of children.

What politician would commit suicide by proposing such measures?

I was thinking of a less forced scenario of a 2 child limited world wide enforced by taxation. Whereas:If you went over 2 children there would be a financial burden collected which could be distributed in poor countries to families that only had two children. You then have a financial burden in rich countries and a financial incentive in poor countries.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I was thinking of a less forced scenario of a 2 child limited world wide enforced by taxation. Whereas:If you went over 2 children there would be a financial burden collected which could be distributed in poor countries to families that only had two children. You then have a financial burden in rich countries and a financial incentive in poor countries.

As opposed tot he current system in the u.s. where you get tax credits and/or deductions for more children )

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I was thinking of a less forced scenario of a 2 child limited world wide enforced by taxation. Whereas:If you went over 2 children there would be a financial burden collected which could be distributed in poor countries to families that only had two children. You then have a financial burden in rich countries and a financial incentive in poor countries.

But if unplanned pregnancies aren't prevented, then you have unplanned for children in families who may not have the means to raise the children, much less pay additional taxes. They may not even be families (single moms) or necessarily even legally adults. We are not going to tax 15 year old unwed mothers, we would give them welfare checks.

Having children without planning for them often results in the parent not achieving important goals, such as education and career. If someone really wants a child, it would be an incentive to achieve educations and career goals before being able to have a child.

You could have as many children as you want, but you'd have to be able to support them and they would have to be planned out.

 

[bobhikes]

But if unplanned pregnancies aren't prevented, then you have unplanned for children in families who may not have the means to raise the children, much less pay additional taxes. They may not even be families (single moms) or necessarily even legally adults. We are not going to tax 15 year old unwed mothers, we would give them welfare checks.

Having children without planning for them often results in the parent not achieving important goals, such as education and career. If someone really wants a child, it would be an incentive to achieve educations and career goals before being able to have a child.

You could have as many children as you want, but you'd have to be able to support them and they would have to be planned out.

Its a work in progress. No system will be perfect. It has a better chance of being passed than birth control. Any step in the direction of lower birth rates is a step in the right direction. Other things would still need to be done. Colonizing Mars would be a great asset.

 

[bobhikes]

Things that could be done right now allowing Human choice.

World legalization of Euthanasia.
World legalization of the Death Penalty for certain crimes.
World legalization of abortion
World encouragement and financial support for Birth control.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Things that could be done right now allowing Human choice.

World legalization of Euthanasia.
World legalization of the Death Penalty for certain crimes.
World legalization of abortion
World encouragement and financial support for Birth control.

I agree with all of that except the death penalty. I would also add financial support for family planning at large, and financial aid (instead of huge expense) for people who would like to adopt.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

From Wilkapedia

The optimal world population has been estimated by a team co-authored by Paul R. Ehrlich.[6] End-targets in this estimation included:

• Decent wealth and resources to everyone
• Basic human rights to everyone
• Preservation of cultural diversity
• Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity
• Preservation of biodiversity

Based on this, the estimation of optimum population was to be roughly around 1.5 billion to 2 billion people.

I was thinking that maybe some of our current problems are due to overpopulation and that technology advances are actually hurting us by not allowing human deaths. Curious as to what others think and what if anything should be done.

I be replying and posting my thoughts as I gather them.

This is a topic that needs extensive exposure, more than any other topic, just about.
But to suggest that the optimum population is much less than what it currently is
would be to suggest somehow lowering the population. And that is potentially
such a nasty situation that it MUST be a less than optimum answer.

The only really viable answer is global government with heavy taxes on the 3rd child.
That itself is problematic enough without suggesting a target population size as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

Cant argue with this. The evidence speaks for itself. Question is, what do we do about it?

A solution would be to sensitize those countries with the highest birth rates, through the UN. If those countries don't prosper and control their demographics, the situation will remain unchanged.

I agree with all of that except the death penalty. I would also add financial support for family planning at large, and financial aid (instead of huge expense) for people who would like to adopt.

The problem is not births, it's the birth rate and the growth rate of a population. The population of Europe, America and Australia is not growing that fast. Just think that Europe, which has always been the most populated continent in the world since ancient times, had a population of 414 million in 1940. Now it's 740 million (considering also the massive immigration from the South of the world). In the US,which was pretty empty in the Middle Ages, had a population of 132 million in 1940, now it's 304 million.
So, if we became 7 billion that fast, it didn't depend on Westerners, whose population growth rates are sustainable.
Also the rare presence of big families in America and in Europe counterbalance childless families, which are becoming the majority in countries like Greece, Switzerland, Russia, Italy.
I will have to say it's also something ethnographic. There are ethnic groups which are much more prolific than others.

 

[ClearPath]

Overpopulation causes many issues around the world. If there is an increasing number of people living here, there is a large demand on resources which may not be able to cope; the day will come where there will be little food, fresh water and space available through waste and the effects of global warming.
The population is ever increasing with Earth remaining the same size.