Optimum Human Population Size

[Ronin Truth]

That doesn't answer the question.

A major decrease in numbers of the world's main destructive problem creators and troublemakers.

[Zippyjuan]

LOL, RT you got me too, at first...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich has been hucking the overpopulation snake oil for 50 years.

Also, look at the dates in the article in the OP... it was written 22 years ago.

From the article:

At the upper end, the present population of 5.5 billion, with its resource consumption patterns and technologies, has clearly exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it.

Since then, the population has grown to 7 billion- an increase of about 25%. The end must be near.

[Ronin Truth]

How do you decide who's a Hitler and who's not? If you kill millions of people, no matter what your intentions, I think that qualifies you as a Hitler, even if you think you're doing it for "the greater good." Like I said, Hitler thought he was doing a lot of good, too without even realizing he was "a Hitler". He just thought he knew what was best for the world, kinda like you.

Rank the world population 1 to N, through global plebiscites. The bottom 20% goes bye-bye, each round.

Or some better set of solutions that may be thought up.

[PaulConventionWV]

A major decrease in numbers of the world's main destructive problem creators and troublemakers.

The problem is that deciding who's a troublemaker is a judgment call, and depending on whose judgment you use, you would come up with completely different segments of the population that need to be eliminated. So whose judgment do we use? Yours?

[PaulConventionWV]

Rank the world population 1 to N, through global plebiscites. The bottom 20% goes bye-bye, each round.

Or some better set of solutions that may be thought up.

So who's going to enforce this plebeian judgment? Not to mention the difficulties of carrying out the "election" that's supposed to decide who is and who isn't in the bottom 20%.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Since then, the population has grown to 7 billion- an increase of about 25%.

So why are you and other progressives like you always talking about population explosions?

[Ronin Truth]

So who's going to enforce this plebeian judgment? Not to mention the difficulties of carrying out the "election" that's supposed to decide who is and who isn't in the bottom 20%.

Beats the crap out of me. I'm just the idea guy, strategist.

The gory details get handled by those who are the better tacticians. The concept of "useless eaters" does have some merit.

The web would seem to be a plausible workable election venue.

I really don't need to be the one to come up with all of the fine detailed answers to everything.

[Ronin Truth]

From the article:



Since then, the population has grown to 7 billion- an increase of about 25%. The end must be near.

Closer to optimum or farther away?

With an overall per capita decrease in the quality of life by everyone on an average by what estimated percentage? Just SWAG it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Beats the crap out of me. I'm just the idea guy, strategist.

The gory details get handled by those who are the better tacticians. The concept of "useless eaters" does have some merit.

The web would seem to be a plausible workable election venue.

I really don't need to be the one to come up with all of the fine detailed answers to everything.

I seem to recall you being a fan of Jesus. He didn't agree with the "useless eaters" concept at all. (Luke 22:26, Matthew 23:11, and many others) Do you pick and choose from what Jesus said as moral, ethical, etc truths?

[Ronin Truth]

I seem to recall you being a fan of Jesus. He didn't agree with the "useless eaters" concept at all. (Luke 22:26, Matthew 23:11, and many others) Do you pick and choose from what Jesus said as moral, ethical, etc truths?

As a Jesus fan, I have a lot more latitude in behavior than a follower or worshiper does. What was the world human population in 30 A.D.?

[PaulConventionWV]

Beats the crap out of me. I'm just the idea guy, strategist.

The gory details get handled by those who are the better tacticians. The concept of "useless eaters" does have some merit.

The web would seem to be a plausible workable election venue.

I really don't need to be the one to come up with all of the fine detailed answers to everything.

The problem isn't that you don't have all the answers. The problem is that there is no solution to the problem you think exists that doesn't involve a massive disregard for human rights. If we throw out human rights for some, then the rights of all are under question. No amount of tactics will make global scale genocide compatible with basic individual freedom.

Oh, and I suppose you're also going to tell me that it's not really "genocide." Let me head that off at the pass, because that is most definitely what it is.

[heavenlyboy34]

As a Jesus fan, I have a lot more latitude in behavior than a follower or worshiper does. What was the world human population in 30 A.D.?

With the aid of this chart I'd SWAG a few hundred million. But the principle is scalable and universal like everything else Jesus talked about.

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing limits population growth like first world wealth.

Free markets and economic freedom leads to prosperity which leads to lower birth rates.

[Ronin Truth]

With the aid of this chart I'd SWAG a few hundred million. But the principle is scalable and universal like everything else Jesus talked about.

Sounds about right. So, not really a threat to anything but itself. chart, thanks! Plague probably did even worse, but not intelligently selective nearly enough.

Still, "disposing" of the worst of the worst 20% even back then would most probably have had very positive effects on the history and the future of the species even now, I reckon.

[Ronin Truth]

Nothing limits population growth like first world wealth.

Free markets and economic freedom leads to prosperity which leads to lower birth rates.

And getting rid of the worst 20% of the species, tends to make that a more distinct possibility.

[Ronin Truth]

07/11/94

Optimum human population a third of present, scientists say


STANFORD -- Until cultures change radically, the optimum number of people to exist on the planet at any one time lies in the vicinity of 1.5 billion to 2 billion people, about a third of the present number, three California ecologists estimated in an article published in the journal Population and Environment.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University and Gretchen Daily of the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California-Berkeley said that figure, "if achieved reasonably soon, would also likely permit the maximum number of **** sapiens to live a good life over the long run."

"Determination of an 'optimum' world population size involves social decisions about the lifestyles to be lived and the distribution of those lifestyles among individuals in the population," the scientists wrote.

Between a minimum viable population size (one just large enough to ensure against extinction) and the maximum number that can be supported by Earth's life-support systems ("housed and nurtured by methods analogous to those used to raise battery chickens"), determining an optimum becomes a problem of choosing what lifestyles are to be led. Community-level, national and international discussions of lifestyle preferences will be required before population size targets can be established.

The team predicated their estimate on a desire to preserve the great diversity of human cultures and also to secure basic human well- being for all the world's people, including future generations.

"In general, we would choose a population size that maximizes very broad environmental and social options for individuals," they wrote. "For example, the population of the United States should be small enough to permit the availability of large tracts of wilderness for hikers and hermits, yet large enough to create vibrant cities that can support complex artistic, educational and other cultural endeavors that lift the human spirit."

Daily and the Ehrlichs said that, since the present population has already exceeded 5.5 billion, even if the optimum were actually 4 billion, "the policy implications of our conclusions are still clear." In other words, any reasonable optimum already has been passed; thus, not only a halt to growth, but subsequent shrinkage, is required.

It will be decades before growth can be halted and shrinkage begins - time to reach a consensus on what is the optimum size where the shrinkage should be stopped.

The Daily-Ehrlich team arrived at their estimate of the optimum by "using humanity's energy consumption as a rough indirect measure of the total impact of civilization on Earth's life-support systems."

The use of energy, "especially that provided by fossil fuel and biomass combustion," directly causes or underpins activities that cause many global environmental problems, they wrote: air and water pollution, acid precipitation, land degradation, emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and production of toxic and hazardous materials and wastes.

Today's technologies and total energy consumption of 13 trillion watts (13 terawatts) already cause serious environmental deterioration and are clearly not sustainable in the long run. Each American, on average, contributes almost 12,000 watts (12 kilowatts) to that total, more than 10 times that of the average citizen of a poor nation, they wrote.

"Suppose population growth halted at 14 billion and everyone were satisfied with a per capita energy use of 7.5 kilowatts, the average in rich nations and about two-thirds of that in the United States in the early 1990s. A human enterprise that large would create a total impact of 105 terawatts, eight times that of today and a clear recipe for ecological collapse," the research team wrote.

The article describes energy expert John Holdren's optimistic scenario in which population growth stops at 10 billion and both rich and poor nations converge at a level of energy use less than one-third of the current American level. That level could be reached with technologies now in hand and with an increase in the quality of life for Americans.

Since the current 13-terawatt world is clearly not sustainable, "one might postulate that, with careful choices of energy sources and technologies, 9 terawatts might be used without degrading environmental systems and dispersing non-renewable resources any more rapidly than they could be repaired or substituted for. Under similar assumptions, a 6-terawatt world would provide a 50 percent margin for error," Daily and her colleagues wrote.

They considered a generous margin of error essential, in view of the history of unforeseen environmental threats such as the destruction to the ozone layer. At 3 kilowatts per person, a 6-terawatt world implies 2 billion people, about the number alive in 1930. That was a sufficient number of people to allow for "many great cities, giant industries, and thriving arts and letters. A great diversity of cultures existed, and members of many of them were not in contact with industrialized cultures. Large tracts of wilderness remained in many parts of the world. "A world with 1.5 billion people using 4.5 terawatts of energy seems equally plausible and would carry a larger margin of safety. This is about the same number of people as existed at the turn of the century."

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/94/940711Arc4189.html

(educational thread bump )

[PaulConventionWV]

And getting rid of the worst 20% of the species, tends to make that a more distinct possibility.

How do you know you're not in the "worst 20%"?

[Ronin Truth]

How do you know you're not in the "worst 20%"?

Well for one reason, the worst 20% don't tend to live the NAP.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well for one reason, the worst 20% don't tend to live the NAP.

You sure about that? That's like 1.4 billion people, larger than the entire population of China. You sure you don't want to make it 15%? Maybe 10? Y'know, any arbitrary percentage that you don't qualify for? (How convenient)

Also, that brings up another good point. There's absolutely no freakin' way to carry out your plan without violating the NAP, which I think would then qualify you for the bottom 20%, or worse.

Any way you spin it, what you're advocating is genocide, pure and simple. You would make Hitler look like a small fry. That would be like Hitler times a few hundred.

[paleocon1]

Does anyone really think the world might just be improved any by having any more Indians or Chinese than we have now?

Almost certainly NOT...................but as long as they remain in India and China I have no Right to take part in culling their herd.

[Ronin Truth]

You sure about that? You sure you don't want to make it 15%? Maybe 10? Y'know, any arbitrary percentage that you don't qualify for? (How convenient)

I'm using the 80/20 Rule guidelines. Why? Because I like it.

Also, that brings up another good point. There's absolutely no freakin' way to carry out your plan without violating the NAP, which I think would then qualify you for the bottom 20%, or worse.

That's the implementers problem not mine. I don't see following the NAP as a litmus test criteria. NAP followers tend to be a very small population minority. Lots of bad guys aren't the REALLY REALLY bad guys.

//

Just think it through without all of the whiny griping and complaining, please.

[Ronin Truth]

Almost certainly NOT...................but as long as they remain in India and China I have no Right to take part in culling their herd.

How about if the culling is a national endeavor? The local folks tend to have the most to gain from losing their bad guys.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Well for one reason, the worst 20% don't tend to live the NAP.

But since you want to kill innocent people, you're not for NAP either!

How do you know you're not in the "worst 20%"?

I totally agree with the points you've made in your posts. I think killing anybody should be out of the equation (except maybe properly convicted violent criminals!)

Nonetheless, I don't think we can sweep the issue under rug either. I think a voluntary sterilization program, paying people to get sterilized, is a decent middle-ground. As it is, so much money is doled out through socialism to unproductive consumers that paying people to get sterilized would probably offset future increases.

[Ronin Truth]

About optimum populations

What is an optimum population exactly? We don’t know with any certainty how many people the Earth can support.

An optimum population is one which the earth can support sustainably, while allowing everyone to enjoy a good quality of life.

The Global Footprint Network (GFN) has developed the concepts of biocapacity — the amount of land available to provide for human needs, and ecological footprint — the land needed to satisfy the consumption of different nations in a sustainable manner, including the biological capacity to absorb and mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming.

The present total ecological footprint of all nations is 2.6 gHa/cap (global hectares per person) but the total biocapacity is only 1.8 gHa/cap [GFN Ecological Footprint Atlas 2009]. This overshoot means that humanity is already using 1.4 times as much resource as is sustainably available. This is only possible for a short time. We are living on the natural “capital” of the planet rather than its renewable “income”.

The situation is more serious than the overall figures indicate. Low income countries have a typical footprint of 1.0 gHa/cap but the average for high income countries is 6.1, of which the UK is typical at 6.12, ie the world population of 6.8 billion would need 3.4 planet Earths to achieve typical UK living standards. The United States has an even higher consumption footprint.

So what are the optimum populations for my country and the world?

The optimum (best) number of people is not and never will be an exact number. It is the approximate size of population that allows communities to sustain a decent standard of living, ie to be able to go on enjoying a satisfactory life style indefinitely into the future. If there are too few people, it is difficult for economies or culture to flourish. On the other hand, excessive numbers are unsustainable.

The higher the standard of living, the greater the environmental impact per person and the smaller the sustainable population size.

Based on GFN figures for 2006, the then world population could live sustainably at the living standard of a middle income country such as Algeria or Ecuador. This is equivalent to 1.8 gHa/person, less than 30 per cent of the average per capita consumption of the rich nations.
What is the relevance of an optimum population? Isn’t carrying capacity a more scientific concept?

The two terms have different meanings. The carrying capacity (for any species) is the maximum number of individuals that could be supported sustainably and indefinitely at a given consumption level by a given environment. Optimum population means the best balance between the number of people and the quality of life that they may obtain, though it should not be viewed as an exact number.

Because carrying capacity refers to maximum sustainable population for a given environment, it doesn’t take into account any margin to allow for changes in the environment. This is another reason why the ‘best’ number of people is almost always fewer than the maximum that the environment can support.

http://populationmatters.org/making-...m-populations/

For me, this ain't necessarily gospel. It's just some scratch pad estimates.

[PaulConventionWV]

//

Just think it through without all of the whiny griping and complaining, please.

$#@! no! You're a disgusting and evil person, and I think most of the plebiscites would agree with me that you should be one of the first to go, but hey, I'm not the one advocating that.

Oh, and you probably won't like the 80/20 rule so much when you find out you don't quite make the cut.

[PaulConventionWV]

But since you want to kill innocent people, you're not for NAP either!



I totally agree with the points you've made in your posts. I think killing anybody should be out of the equation (except maybe properly convicted violent criminals!)

Nonetheless, I don't think we can sweep the issue under rug either. I think a voluntary sterilization program, paying people to get sterilized, is a decent middle-ground. As it is, so much money is doled out through socialism to unproductive consumers that paying people to get sterilized would probably offset future increases.

I'm glad we agree about the monstrosity that is RT's "dream world", but I completely disagree that any sort of culling, voluntary or not, would be either necessary or even beneficial. It's just a psychopath's pipe dream, and the psychopaths have fooled a lot of people into accepting a watered-down version of their sick plans.

[Ronin Truth]

$#@! no! You're a disgusting and evil person, and I think most of the plebiscites would agree with me that you should be one of the first to go, but hey, I'm not the one advocating that.

Thanks for the additional thread bump!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I'm glad we agree about the monstrosity that is RT's "dream world", but I completely disagree that any sort of culling, voluntary or not, would be either necessary or even beneficial. It's just a psychopath's pipe dream, and the psychopaths have fooled a lot of people into accepting a watered-down version of their sick plans.

Just so we are clear on my intended meaning of sterilization :

sterilization /ster·i·li·za·tion/ (ster″ĭ-lĭ-za´shun)
1. the complete elimination or destruction of all living microorganisms.
2. any procedure by which an individual is made incapable of reproduction

[jbauer]

No I'm not "okie dokie" with the woman demanding "someone" pay for her 15 kids, but using the force of government to render one infertile is ok with you? Her kids are her responsibility. We do have a social welfare program in this country that is more of a spider web rather than a safety net, but she should have enough to provide basic sustenance.

Why? In the wild if an animal becomes over populated and drains their resources they die. Why does society owe someone a "basic sustenance"?? Now if you're talking voluntary donations I'm all for that. I find it just as immoral to force charity as I do to force infertility.

[PaulConventionWV]

Thanks for the additional thread bump!

No problem. People need to be aware of the kind of sickness you're trying to spread.