Optimum Human Population, your thoughts

[icehorse]

And beef production, in your opinion, is driven primarily by the consumption needs of the third world urban poor? How much beef does the "overpopulation" eat, relative to the wealthy but slim population of their neocolonial masters? Do those who eat most of the beef need the beef to survive, or do they want the beef for wealth marking and gustatory appeal?

Dude, it was an example.

From the same source, a pound of many common veggies (e.g. wheat, potatoes, lettuce), takes about 25 gallons of water. So of course we could cram more people onto the planet (for a while), by saying that our protein sources MUST from now on be vegetable protein sources such as beans. Well in general beans are somewhere in between veggies and animal protein in terms of gallons needed per pound. So let's say (I believe conservatively), that typical beans require 200 gallons of water / pound. Once again, we can (and have), done the math. A person needs X amount of protein per year. The least water intensive proteins need Y gallons of water per pound, multiply that by N billion people, and you can see how much water is needed - just to get the protein we need.

It's really just math. Observable, calculate-able math.

 

[Politesse]

Dude, it was an example.

From the same source, a pound of many common veggies (e.g. wheat, potatoes, lettuce), takes about 25 gallons of water. So of course we could cram more people onto the planet (for a while), by saying that our protein sources MUST from now on be vegetable protein sources such as beans. Well in general beans are somewhere in between veggies and animal protein in terms of gallons needed per pound. So let's say (I believe conservatively), that typical beans require 200 gallons of water / pound. Once again, we can (and have), done the math. A person needs X amount of protein per year. The least water intensive proteins need Y gallons of water per pound, multiply that by N billion people, and you can see how much water is needed - just to get the protein we need.

It's really just math. Observable, calculate-able math.

But you aren't showing the math, here. You're making up numbers, and not even bothering to continue working them through to their conclusion. Even assuming that your made-up figure is correct, how many megaliters of water would it in fact take to feed all of the poor beans, and how many are available? And can you prove reducing the population of the poor would solve the problem better than reducing waste would? For instance, is the amount of beans consumed by the poor greater than the amount of beans wasted by the wealthy? To prove that the reproduction of the poor is the primary cause of environmental destruction you need to prove, not just that there is a carrying capacity of the land, but what that capacity is and that we are beyond it, and that reducign the numbers of the poor would somehow help more than solving the actual problems that drive resource exploitation.

 

[icehorse]

But you aren't showing the math, here. You're making up numbers, and not even bothering to continue working them through to their conclusion. Even assuming that your made-up figure is correct, how many megaliters of water would it in fact take to feed all of the poor beans, and how many are available? And can you prove reducing the population of the poor would solve the problem better than reducing waste would?

You are correct. I'm not doing all of your research for you. Do you have the math that shows that we can sustainably feed X billion people? Do you agree that that math can be done?

And BTW, I'm talking about reducing population overall, so that no one needs to be poor.

 

[Politesse]

Do you have the math that shows that we can sustainably feed X billion people? Do you agree that that math can be done?

No and no. Such a projection requires the kind of empirically denuded guesswork I abhor. There's no point in making "predictions" unless they can be empirically verified. But we know a lot about population dynamics at smaller levels, and about why famines occur. We know a lot about resource exploitation and the economic engines that drive it. Books and books upon articles on articles are published on population demography and ecology each year, and we have a detailed portrait of human and environmental interactions as a result. We also have a long history of Malthusians gaining influence in governments and doing things like forcefully depopulating regions, without generating any net increase in wealth or indeed any lasting population reduction. I'm not asking you to "do my research", only pointing out that you have not done yours.

And BTW, I'm talking about reducing population overall, so that no one needs to be poor.

That would be great, if high population were the reason for poverty. But that isn't the reason why people are poor. If wealth were evenly distributed across the population, no one would be poor. And telling people that they can't, for instance, have multiple children in a region where infant mortality is high is unlikely to improve their economic situation, rather the opposite case. The reasons people have multiple children are fundamentally driven by economics in the first place, as anyone in one of these major population centers can and would tell you themselves.

 

[icehorse]

Such a projection requires the kind of empirically denuded guesswork I abhor. There's no point in making "predictions" unless they can be empirically verified. But we know a lot about population dynamics at smaller levels, and about why famines occur.

Utter nonsense. Just because you don't want to do the math or look up the research doesn't mean it's not valid. We already HAVE the empirical data we need. You seem to - for reasons I can't imagine - want to pretend that the planet can sustainably house more humans than it can.

This is NOT about sociology - it's about biomass. It's about protein and calories. It's not about how we do or do not treat poor people. It's about how many people - in total - can be fed.

 

[Estro Felino]

I gave you a "meta-citation". He includes extensive citations in his books. For example, in one of hundreds of citations Robbins says:

"The California Agricultural Extension says that it takes 5214 gallons of fresh water to produce a pound of beef." (page 236, Food Revolution)

I am totally sure that there are people ready to affirm that California historical water shortages are not related to human activities.
The general attitude of mankind can hardly change; it doesn't matter how many lakes and rivers dry up, or how many forests are destroyed. Ecosystems are not considered valuable.
We will have to build new towns and cities, drill and overexploit new wells, because the population will grow exponentially. It doesn't matter how good we are at recycling materials: human activities will go on polluting and irreversibly damaging ecosystems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I would try not to cheat nature. ;0)

Being back those things deemed as sins like smoking tobbaco and the old tasty fast food ingredients like 1960s lard and grease to bring back that old time flavor. Repeal seatbelt laws and bike helmet laws as it applies. Let people play with their own fire by bringing back those types of personal choices to either live a longer healthier life, or a shorter faster one through those numerous "sin" habits and indulgences.

 

[Politesse]

Utter nonsense. Just because you don't want to do the math or look up the research doesn't mean it's not valid. We already HAVE the empirical data we need. You seem to - for reasons I can't imagine - want to pretend that the planet can sustainably house more humans than it can.

This is NOT about sociology - it's about biomass. It's about protein and calories. It's not about how we do or do not treat poor people. It's about how many people - in total - can be fed.

If it is just about math, then why do you find it so difficult to back up with math, or present any empirical data?

I fail to see how reducing the world population by 3 billion could possibly fail to be a sociological issue, even if it weren't a veiled attempt to blame the excesses of wealthy on the bodies of the poor.