Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:33 PM Feb 2016

My 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

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My number is 2,570,362,842. What's yours? (Original Post) GliderGuider Feb 2016 OP
OK Old Codger Feb 2016 #1
2,398,342,837 enough Feb 2016 #2
I had a scary knee jerk reaction to your post, How soon will it be back down to that? mackdaddy Feb 2016 #3
2,426,648,610 n/t Binkie The Clown Feb 2016 #4
2,658,959,653. Delmette Feb 2016 #5
4,357,288,525 The2ndWheel Feb 2016 #6
3,644,711,475 phantom power Feb 2016 #7
3,329,792,257 NeoGreen Feb 2016 #8
If you read it, please keep in mind that I wrote it. GliderGuider Feb 2016 #11
I will, and just to be clear I wasn't trying to be or sound snarky... NeoGreen Feb 2016 #12
I appreciate that, thanks. GliderGuider Feb 2016 #13
The scientific community disagrees with Bodhi Paul Mosby Feb 2016 #9
I'm stunned! GliderGuider Feb 2016 #10
Sustainability is a tricky thing The2ndWheel Feb 2016 #14
Excuse me...? NeoGreen Feb 2016 #17
That's one of the issues with the word sustainable The2ndWheel Feb 2016 #18
Looks like you're a wee bit older ... Delphinus Feb 2016 #15
Just turned 65 in early December. GliderGuider Feb 2016 #16
3,000,609,836 bloom Feb 2016 #19
2,334,732,953 trof Feb 2016 #20
2,766,616,393rd 4dsc Feb 2016 #21
Question FBaggins Feb 2016 #22
Because that's the one lifestyle that I know met my sustainability criteria. GliderGuider Feb 2016 #23
2,485,759,563 madokie Feb 2016 #24

mackdaddy

(1,527 posts)
3. I had a scary knee jerk reaction to your post, How soon will it be back down to that?
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 01:59 PM
Feb 2016

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.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
8. 3,329,792,257
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 03:29 PM
Feb 2016

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)
11. If you read it, please keep in mind that I wrote it.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:40 PM
Feb 2016

That may factor into whether you decide to believe any of my conclusions.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)
12. I will, and just to be clear I wasn't trying to be or sound snarky...
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:58 PM
Feb 2016

...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)
13. I appreciate that, thanks.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 05:15 PM
Feb 2016

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.)

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
10. I'm stunned!
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 04:32 PM
Feb 2016

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)
14. Sustainability is a tricky thing
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 06:03 PM
Feb 2016

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)
17. Excuse me...?
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 09:47 AM
Feb 2016

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)
18. That's one of the issues with the word sustainable
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:58 PM
Feb 2016

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)
15. Looks like you're a wee bit older ...
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 08:33 PM
Feb 2016

2,946,078,689

My husband: 2,969,304,918 just a few months later.

Lots of people.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
16. Just turned 65 in early December.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:04 PM
Feb 2016

The world is adding about 80 million people a year now, as it has been since the mid 1980s.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
23. Because that's the one lifestyle that I know met my sustainability criteria.
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 06:02 PM
Feb 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»My number is 2,570,362,84...