What's the Least?

[sandy whitelinger]

When the world's population recently hit 7 billion the question arose, "Is that too many?" My thought is that the world is supporting that many so maybe not. But the question could arise that some people's living is just barely living. My question is what is the very least that you would feel is acceptable to justify existing?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

When the world's population recently hit 7 billion the question arose, "Is that too many?" My thought is that the world is supporting that many so maybe not. But the question could arise that some people's living is just barely living. My question is what is the very least that you would feel is acceptable to justify existing?

You'll have to clarify what you mean by this question. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You'll have to clarify what you mean by this question. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by it.

There seems to be the suppossition that the world is populated to the extent that it's resources are over-taxed. I'm curious as to what people think might be the minimum amount of resources that one individual might need for a decent survival and what that lifestyle might look like. With that minimum in mind then would the world's resources be over taxed if everyone lived in that manner.

 

[dust1n]

I dunno. 50 million doctors seems like a safe bet.

 

[Father Heathen]

Don't worry, famine and disease eventually will slim that number down once it passes the threshold, as per nature.

 

[Noaidi]

My question is what is the very least that you would feel is acceptable to justify existing?

Difficult to give an actual figure to that question (although some have come up with a figure of 2 billion), as it depends on so many variables. The carrying capacity of each country would need to be calculated, based on available resources and the rate at which those resources would be consumed in order to live to a decent standard without too much adverse environmental impact.
Energy availability, migration, land space for food and housing, water availability, fertility rates, employment levels, etc would all have to be known in order for a sustainable per-country estimate to be calculated.
I don't know whether or not this has been researched on a country-by-country basis.

Globally, a figure of 2 billion has been proposed:
http://populationmatters.org/documents/population_numbers.pdf

"Through the use of a population policy that respects individual rights, and effective resource use policies, as well as science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment, an optimum population of 2 billion people can be achieved."​

The report goes on to highlight an important point:
"Historically, decisions to protect the environment have been based on isolated crises and catastrophes. Instead of examining the problem in a holistic, proactive manner, these ad hoc decisions have been designed to protect and/or promote a particular resource or aspect of human wellbeing in the short-term. Our concern, based on past experience, is that these urgent issues relating to human carrying capacity of the world may not be addressed holistically until the situation becomes intolerable or, possibly, irreversible."​

Whatever the number for a sustainable population turns out to be, rest assured it will be reached eventually, either because we have decided to act or because Nature has acted on our behalf.

Edit: I've just realised that you were asking about minimum resources required to live, not a sustainable population size. Sorry! Hope someone got something out of my response, though.​

 

[RaviAuto]

When the world's population recently hit 7 billion the question arose, "Is that too many?" My thought is that the world is supporting that many so maybe not. But the question could arise that some people's living is just barely living. My question is what is the very least that you would feel is acceptable to justify existing?

I have no idea about this.. can you give more information about this???

 

[Renji]

There seems to be the suppossition that the world is populated to the extent that it's resources are over-taxed. I'm curious as to what people think might be the minimum amount of resources that one individual might need for a decent survival and what that lifestyle might look like. With that minimum in mind then would the world's resources be over taxed if everyone lived in that manner.

Kinda difficult to assess, IMO.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Difficult to give an actual figure to that question (although some have come up with a figure of 2 billion), as it depends on so many variables. The carrying capacity of each country would need to be calculated, based on available resources and the rate at which those resources would be consumed in order to live to a decent standard without too much adverse environmental impact.
Energy availability, migration, land space for food and housing, water availability, fertility rates, employment levels, etc would all have to be known in order for a sustainable per-country estimate to be calculated.
I don't know whether or not this has been researched on a country-by-country basis.

Globally, a figure of 2 billion has been proposed:
http://populationmatters.org/documents/population_numbers.pdf

"Through the use of a population policy that respects individual rights, and effective resource use policies, as well as science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment, an optimum population of 2 billion people can be achieved."​

The report goes on to highlight an important point:
"Historically, decisions to protect the environment have been based on isolated crises and catastrophes. Instead of examining the problem in a holistic, proactive manner, these ad hoc decisions have been designed to protect and/or promote a particular resource or aspect of human wellbeing in the short-term. Our concern, based on past experience, is that these urgent issues relating to human carrying capacity of the world may not be addressed holistically until the situation becomes intolerable or, possibly, irreversible."​

Whatever the number for a sustainable population turns out to be, rest assured it will be reached eventually, either because we have decided to act or because Nature has acted on our behalf.​

Edit: I've just realised that you were asking about minimum resources required to live, not a sustainable population size. Sorry! Hope someone got something out of my response, though.​

I'm not asking what the least number of people but the least level of personal existance. For example, do we need more than a bowl of rice and a quart of water a day as well as protection from the elements? Do we need more transportation than our feet?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Kinda difficult to assess, IMO.

Yet people still wish to say the world is over-populated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not asking what the least number of people but the least level of personal existance. For example, do we need more than a bowl of rice and a quart of water a day as well as protection from the elements? Do we need more transportation than our feet?

I'd say that one justifiable lower limit would be our basic physical needs: start with what we need to eat, both in terms of calorific content and nutrients, to sustain healthy life.

Once you have that, you can extrapolate from it what level of agricultural, commercial and industrial activity would be needed to sustain this, and compare all this to the carrying capacity of the Earth.

I'm sure that many people would argue that we need more from our lives than this, but I doubt you'd find many people who would argue for less and say that an existence where we die of hunger or scurvy would be acceptable.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'd say that one justifiable lower limit would be our basic physical needs: start with what we need to eat, both in terms of calorific content and nutrients, to sustain healthy life.

Once you have that, you can extrapolate from it what level of agricultural, commercial and industrial activity would be needed to sustain this, and compare all this to the carrying capacity of the Earth.

I'm sure that many people would argue that we need more from our lives than this, but I doubt you'd find many people who would argue for less and say that an existence where we die of hunger or scurvy would be acceptable.

Do we make our own clothes out of skins? Fabric? Naked in the tropics?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do we make our own clothes out of skins? Fabric? Naked in the tropics?

I don't think that we need to specify, but we would need to account for the impacts of each option.

If we're naked in the tropics, then we're only living in the tropics, which means we've decided we're just not going to use a whole lot of fertile land in places where it's cool enough that you need a coat occasionally.

If we make clothes out of skins, then we're either hunting and trapping or running fur farms. On a mass scale, I think that hunting and trapping would have a pretty low carrying capacity, because both need a lot of undisturbed room for the hunting ranges. If history's taught us anything, it's that agriculture sustains people more efficiently than hunting and gathering.

And for the other options, the same thing applies: if you're assuming a particular thing to meet a need (e.g. fabric for clothes), then you need to consider where that fabric is coming from and what inputs of energy or resources it needs.

I don't think there's necessarily one obvious answer to the "minimum" lifestyle. Instead, I think it's a matter of figuring out what the basic needs are, then brainstorming different ways to meet those needs, and then figuring out how much each way costs per person and how many people each can sustain.

 

[bain-druie]

Excellent topic :yes:

Many brilliant minds are at work on various aspects of this question, and one of the reasons it is difficult to answer is that science is changing so fast; changing in ways that are likely to help rather than hurt us in the long run, as opposed to the Industrial Revolution, which introduced a lot of changes that produced short-term prosperity, but left us royally screwed in the long run.

Here is one example of what I mean: [youtube]ghhgUmGBjX8[/youtube]
The Future of Free Energy is here now! The end of oil, coal and nuclear pollution! - YouTube

The point being, we are hopefully discovering not only the means to sustain basic life (human and other terrestrial forms thereof), but the means to do so while maintaining a very high quality of life. The hope is that we can not only survive, but surpass.

How realistic that hope is remains to be seen; I have studied sustainable building methods and begun to experiment with them, and I can say this with certainty:

The ways in which we build, farm, and generally live need to undergo drastic overhaul regardless of what happens with the population; but if we want to minimize loss of life in the long run, it needs to be sooner rather than later.

Specifically when speaking of how we build homes in the developed world, it is true that we have founded entire industries on a rapacious consumption lifestyle that cannot continue, simply because our resources are running out.

One example: we use lumber to build rectilinear structures which are inefficient thermodynamically and just about every other way. We waste huge amounts of the lumber we cut by insisting on rectilinear shapes; the cylindrical shape of natural tree boles has exponentially greater structural integrity. Rather than working with the land to maximize profit for ourselves as well as the other creatures that are part of our ecology, we destroy and reshape it; and we reshape it very poorly.

There are many sustainable building methods that are far less expensive and more comfortable, as well as safer, than what we currently use. But we have wrapped construction in miles of bureaucratic red tape with building codes and contracting laws - in some cases, justifiably, but in the long run, to our detriment as a species.

People see very short-term, and are afraid of momentous change because it is perceived (often accurately) as a threat to immediate comfort. Until that fear gives way to the realism that we MUST change or die along with our planet, we can't do all that much.

This is pertinent because the answer to the OP's question is dependent on the variables described here as well as many others I haven't addressed. How much is enough? - The answer will always vary because we are individuals; but the methods for preserving our lives and lifestyles are slowly becoming more accessible, so that our very limited resources can be stretched further and renewed more easily than they can with our current methodologies. That will support a greater population than we possibly could if we continue the way we're going.

I hope this makes sense. I am off coffee and sometimes the results are painfully obvious, LOL.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yet people still wish to say the world is over-populated.

Less is always better, regardless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Minimum? Plenty of food and fresh water, clothing, access to health care, a beach house, a high-end sports car or luxury sedan of your choice, 3 months of paid vacation a year, 1 robot maid, and a lifetime supply of cookie dough ice cream.

 

[Noaidi]

I'm not asking what the least number of people but the least level of personal existance.

Yes, I realised that shortly after I'd posted.:sorry1:

For example, do we need more than a bowl of rice and a quart of water a day as well as protection from the elements? Do we need more transportation than our feet?

Perhaps it's better to judge what we don't need in order to survive. So much of our lives are taken up in accumulating crap that is extraneous to our existence.
It's difficult to say what are the bare essentials for living, as that will vary depending on circumstance and geography, but I'm sure we all can look at our lives and say what we don't need. That is my starting point. I'm not always successful, but I'm trying to get better at it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't think that we need to specify, but we would need to account for the impacts of each option.

If we're naked in the tropics, then we're only living in the tropics, which means we've decided we're just not going to use a whole lot of fertile land in places where it's cool enough that you need a coat occasionally.

If we make clothes out of skins, then we're either hunting and trapping or running fur farms. On a mass scale, I think that hunting and trapping would have a pretty low carrying capacity, because both need a lot of undisturbed room for the hunting ranges. If history's taught us anything, it's that agriculture sustains people more efficiently than hunting and gathering.

And for the other options, the same thing applies: if you're assuming a particular thing to meet a need (e.g. fabric for clothes), then you need to consider where that fabric is coming from and what inputs of energy or resources it needs.

I don't think there's necessarily one obvious answer to the "minimum" lifestyle. Instead, I think it's a matter of figuring out what the basic needs are, then brainstorming different ways to meet those needs, and then figuring out how much each way costs per person and how many people each can sustain.

What I'm looking for someone to do is to quantify what the least is that an average human needs to survive. From there I think we can look at how to supply that according to the world's resources and come up with a figure that the world can support. Until then I'm not about to suggest that the world is overpopulated.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Excellent topic :yes:

Of Course!:yes:

Many brilliant minds are at work on various aspects of this question, and one of the reasons it is difficult to answer is that science is changing so fast; changing in ways that are likely to help rather than hurt us in the long run, as opposed to the Industrial Revolution, which introduced a lot of changes that produced short-term prosperity, but left us royally screwed in the long run.

I look around me and I've travelled my country left to right and top to bottom and fail to see how we are "royally screwed." Life looks pretty good from here.

Here is one example of what I mean: [youtube]ghhgUmGBjX8[/youtube]

The Future of Free Energy is here now! The end of oil, coal and nuclear pollution! - YouTube

The point being, we are hopefully discovering not only the means to sustain basic life (human and other terrestrial forms thereof), but the means to do so while maintaining a very high quality of life. The hope is that we can not only survive, but surpass.

I hate when I get sent off to peruse someonelse's shiznit. Give me a synopsis and save me some time please.

How realistic that hope is remains to be seen; I have studied sustainable building methods and begun to experiment with them, and I can say this with certainty:

The ways in which we build, farm, and generally live need to undergo drastic overhaul regardless of what happens with the population; but if we want to minimize loss of life in the long run, it needs to be sooner rather than later.

Specifically when speaking of how we build homes in the developed world, it is true that we have founded entire industries on a rapacious consumption lifestyle that cannot continue, simply because our resources are running out.

One example: we use lumber to build rectilinear structures which are inefficient thermodynamically and just about every other way. We waste huge amounts of the lumber we cut by insisting on rectilinear shapes; the cylindrical shape of natural tree boles has exponentially greater structural integrity. Rather than working with the land to maximize profit for ourselves as well as the other creatures that are part of our ecology, we destroy and reshape it; and we reshape it very poorly.

There are many sustainable building methods that are far less expensive and more comfortable, as well as safer, than what we currently use. But we have wrapped construction in miles of bureaucratic red tape with building codes and contracting laws - in some cases, justifiably, but in the long run, to our detriment as a species.

My house was built about 50 years ago and probably can last a lot longer with good upkeep. I fail to see how the materials used were a drain on resources.

People see very short-term, and are afraid of momentous change because it is perceived (often accurately) as a threat to immediate comfort. Until that fear gives way to the realism that we MUST change or die along with our planet, we can't do all that much.

We always seem to change to circunstances. I'm just looking to define it better and want to start with what an average person's very basic needs are.

This is pertinent because the answer to the OP's question is dependent on the variables described here as well as many others I haven't addressed. How much is enough? - The answer will always vary because we are individuals; but the methods for preserving our lives and lifestyles are slowly becoming more accessible, so that our very limited resources can be stretched further and renewed more easily than they can with our current methodologies. That will support a greater population than we possibly could if we continue the way we're going.

I hope this makes sense. I am off coffee and sometimes the results are painfully obvious, LOL.

It would make more sense if you could quantify what the average person's very basic needs are.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Perhaps it's better to judge what we don't need in order to survive.

Not for my purpose here.