Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMy number is 2,570,362,842. What's yours?
On the day I was born, there were about 2,570,362,842 people in the world. By my estimate that was already 10X too many people on the planet for human life to be considered sustainable. The truly sustainable human population is between 10 and 50 million, so long as they are all living like hunter-gatherers.
Find out your number here: http://worldpopulationhistory.org/my-population-number/
The source of my sustainability estimate: http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)2,337,169,874TH
enough
(13,259 posts)mackdaddy
(1,527 posts)I am not sure I am as extreme as Guy McPherson as we will ALL be gone by 2030, but I think we are at a terrifying precipice.
Between the spread of "new" tropical diseases, the killing of ocean life, and the massive swings in weather cutting crop production world wide, we cannot sustain the current population. This will also continue to cause political instability, warlord like behavior, refugees, and wars.
Central Ohio had a very wet two weeks in late spring in 2015. Soy and Corn crops were reported down by at least 40% from just that.
Unfortunately it seems like just a matter of a few years to a few decades until we see a massive drop in populations, just because we will not be able to provide food and an environment for them.
My number was 2,902,655,738. I think we will be below that by 2030.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Delmette
(522 posts)My 90 year old mother is 1,986,292,046.
That puts this in to prospective.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)I think the sustainable population has changed over time and has steadily decreased over the last 100 years, however, my gut reaction is 50 million seems low. I will be interested to read the reference site.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That may factor into whether you decide to believe any of my conclusions.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...I expect to have my "gut reaction" corrected, after I read your document. But I have thought about the topic somewhat over the years, I did score a 90% on the 10 question test (stupid 1300s sanitation efforts in London), but have not actually researched it in specific detail.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My conclusions in that article are intended to give what I think are reasonable estimates for the the permanent sustainability of both human life and a fully intact and functioning biosphere. I take "permanent" to mean something like "on the order of a million years, barring external circumstances." The conclusions are based not just on our population, but on human activity levels as well. I look at the question using half a dozen different scientific frameworks, and one of my own devising (the thermodynamic footprint.)
Mosby
(16,311 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Not.
Of course they disagree with me. They have to stay with the herd. I don't. They're humanists. I'm not. They think sustainability has something to do with LED lightbulbs, solar panels and organic cheese. I don't.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)We look at the past, we look at the future, and think these things actually exist. Variables have changed from the past, and they change in the future. That's why saying going back to this(whether it's hunter/gatherer lifestyles, 1990 emissions, or the economy of 1950's America, etc), or trying to predict what's going to happening 5 years from now, let alone 50, is somewhat pointless. All that matters is right now. 7+ billion people exist on the planet today, therefore, all we know, is that right now, 7+ billion people is sustainable today.
However, if we do live on a finite planet, it comes at a cost. That cost can take many different forms. It can be other species not existing. It can be human beings having to adapt mentally, emotionally, and physically, to that many people. Some will do that, some won't. It doesn't always go the way you want either. Nor can we control everything, which is why human society tries to simplify as much of life as we can. It's a complex and dynamic equation. When we hit this or that limit, that's when people react differently. We come up with some solutions that help more people, and at the same time we 'll come up with solutions that hurt more people, so we end up basically where we were, just in a different context. That's the cycle we do over and over again, because we can't escape it.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)
All that matters is right now. 7+ billion people exist on the planet today, therefore, all we know, is that right now, 7+ billion people is sustainable today.
I don't think we're using the same definition of sustainable.
Not by a long shot.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It's hardly used the same way by different people, or groups of people. Like most words, the definition is subjective, and dependent on who you're asking.
Delphinus
(11,830 posts)2,946,078,689
My husband: 2,969,304,918 just a few months later.
Lots of people.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The world is adding about 80 million people a year now, as it has been since the mid 1980s.
bloom
(11,635 posts)trof
(54,256 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)This is so cool.
FBaggins
(26,737 posts)On what basis are you defining "sustainable" as exclusively hunter-gatherer?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)
My main criterion is that human activity can't damage the biosphere in any significant way. Once we moved out of H-G mode desertification followed in the Fertile Crescent, very early in the civilization process. So my assumption is that agricultural societies are not sustainable. Small horticultural societies may be sustainable, but if they use large (?) amounts of exosomatic energy (say over 10,000 kcal/person) they probably aren't sustainable either.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm a little older than you it looks like