The Population Bomb Has Been Defused

[yallerdawg]

Many of us grew up with and heard for decades how the inevitable overpopulation of our planet would kill us all.

Then, something else happened.

The lesson here? Buck up, kids! "Something else" is never predicted, but quite often happens!

Source: Bloomberg, by Noah Smith

Some of the most spectacularly wrong predictions in history have been made by those who claim that overpopulation is going to swamp the planet. Thomas Malthus, a British economist writing in the late 1700s, is the most famous of these. Extrapolating past trends into the future, he predicted that population growth would inevitably swamp available food resources, leading to mass starvation. That didn’t happen -- we continued to develop new technologies that let us stay ahead of the reaper.

In 1968, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb,” warning that unchecked population growth would lead to mass starvation in the 1970s. He was just as wrong as Malthus. Global population did surge, but food production managed to keep up.

Of course, it’s worth noting that lower fertility won't immediately defuse the population bomb. The number of people in a country continues to rise for years after young people stop having lots of kids -- a phenomenon known as population momentum. Thus, the United Nations continues to project that global population will rise from about 7.6 billion today to more than 11 billion by the end of the century:

Nor will lower global population growth mean the end of all demographic problems. Much of sub-Saharan Africa will be overflowing with people for decades to come, and many of those people will want to migrate to wealthy, aging countries in search of better economic opportunities, or to escape wars. That migration pressure will be a touchy subject for many nations, as the recent refugee wave in Europe has shown.

But it’s looking like the dire predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich will never come to pass. Unlike other animals, humanity has voluntarily limited its reproduction. The population bomb has probably been defused.

Read it all at: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Postponed, not defused. nt

[yallerdawg]

3. I grew up with "Soylent Green is People."

Turned out to be more allegory than reality.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. To date. nt

[SCantiGOP]

14. According to the science in the article:

Defused, not just postponed.

[democratisphere]

2. Overpopulation has ALREADY destroyed this planet; environments, resources,

many species, land, air and seas.
Earth has human carrying capacity of approximately 2 billion people. The current population of over 6 billion is 3X more than it can sustainabley handle The current overpopulation continues the destruction.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. This.

We’ll have to evolve pretty highly and fast if we’re going to have to live with 11 billion people. Because competition for living space and resources kills anything that can’t defend itself from the Anthros. War, violence, homicide, epidemic femicide...all proceed from human greed, anger and stupidity. (The “Three Poisons” in Buddhism.). Primitive survival urges.

When we’re forced into closer and closer quarters, our connections to Nature cut off or destroyed because of the sheer masses of people demanding a place to squat, what does anyone think will result?

[malthaussen]

5. In defense of my namesake, I have to say:

...it hasn't happened yet. I'd also point out that food supply is not the only thing to worry about (although there is a limit to how much we can increase it under current circumstances), but also limits on non-renewable resources, that are sucked up at an increasing rate as both population increases and standards of living rise, requiring more resources per capita. Unless and until the human race can escape this planet and move into the solar system (where we can find new sources of critical resources), unless and until we can stop relying on fossil fuels for energy that are non-renewable and screw up the environment and the climate, an implosion is inevitable. Not that I'd be willing to make a hard prediction on the time (I lack both the data and the models to do so), but then, neither did Mr Malthus.

-- Mal

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. How about what to do with the waste we produce?

Organic and inorganic. Incalculable amounts of waste and trash. Gotta go somewhere.

Those who are poor or weak in health are the ones who do now and will further bear the brunt of the pressures.

[malthaussen]

20. Subsumed under the clause "non-renewable and screw up the environment."

Some day, when total matter conversion is possible (if we survive that long), it won't be a problem. But that is an indeterminate event.

-- Mal

[Moral Compass]

6. This article is hogwash

A simple truth: every systemic problem we have including climate change and global environmental destruction and degradation is due to global overpopulation.

I've read Erlich's book and have read Malthus. They're both right. This article is nonsense.

We've managed to escape the result of massive overpopulation with technological innovations in agriculture and in transportation. The bill is still out there and the day it will come due is approaching.

No system where resources are being consumed more rapidly than they can be replaced--if they are to be replaced at all--is sustainable.

I direct you to some other Democratic Underground content: https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x114396, Overpopulation could be people, planet problem (AP/CNN) {Surprise! Population bomb still ticking}

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x201674, The Return of the Population Bomb

The global population is higher than the carrying capacity of the globe. Given that it is unlikely we are going to be able to get to other Earth-like planets and somehow siphon off our massive population it is clear if you do the math that we are on an exponential downward spiral.

BS articles like this only fan the flames. This is a prime example of a "nothing to see here...move along...move along" article that our corporate owned media companies are so good at producing.

Again, do the math folks. The trend hasn't changed. Until the fertility rates in India, Africa,South America and Asia drop off dramatically and stay that way for centuries the problem remains. We need sustained birth rates under 2.0 per birth parents.

What the world needs is population reduction not a slower rate of growth. If the gross number don't go down the world is (still) probably doomed.

[yallerdawg]

8. This is an 'opinion' page.

Obviously, you have another opinion.

It is very difficult to be an optimistic Democrat, isn't it?

One less thing to worry so much about - or just one more thing that never goes away?

[democratisphere]

19. Being optimistic won't change a single thing.

The population is killing this planet and everyday it is becoming worse.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. This.

I’ve known since I was 10, overpopulation isn’t “winnable”.
You can’t bargain with it forever. It’s either don’t breed, or help the problem continue to get bigger.

No wonder we’ve got such problems with Cancers of all kinds—it’s a microcosm of what we are to the planet and creatures.

[KPN]

7. Ridiculous. Great example of can't see the forest

for the trees. What the hell do theythinkis the cause of carbon emissions-based global warming? What industry is one of the largest contributors of carbon emissions? AGRICULTURE! Just cause we can feed most of the population doesn't mean we aren't over-populated. Global warming is just one of a few very real threats of mass culling of the human species.

[yallerdawg]

9. The statistics point out we are somehow moderating our population growth.

A number of regions have declining population growth.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

[KPN]

10. The ship's already sinking. Lowering the growth rate

won't save it. It's already too late. The human population will be thinned by forces other than starvation likely in the not too distant future -- or we will see mass extinction. Has it ever occurred to you there's a reason that flu and cold virus' seem to get more extreme each year? Mother Nature working her magic to put things (human population) back in balance. Global warming, threat of world war are other mechanisms playing a role.

[yallerdawg]

11. The statistics referenced here are in regards to births and predictions.

Overpopulation is not reaching the levels that were forecast and the conditions that were predicted.

Wouldn't it be nice to have evidence that one dire prediction of our impending doom is not turning out as forecast? No? WE have to cling to them all?

[KPN]

12. Yeah, a reduction in the rate of growth

is absolutely good. It may help to defer things for a bit for sure. But we need to address carbon emissions now. We also need as a species to find a way around the inevitable conflicts that are obviously brewing around the world today. To do that effectively means finding acceptable solutions for all involved -- and what are the chances of doing that, of no winners and losers, of relative equality?

[dugog55]

13. Overpopulation

Earth Overshoot Day in 2017 was August 2nd. That is the day that humans use up the amount of resources the Earth can replenish in one year. If everyone on the planet lived like Americans, we would need 5 planet Earths to sustain them. The largest sustainable population is around 2 billion people living like Europeans (worldpopulationbalance.org). We currently have more than 3 times that amount. Sure, there is no major immediate crisis, but there will be one before your children or grandchildren reach old age.

When I was in Grade School in the 60's, three social topics were frequently talked about; running out of fresh water, overpopulation, and converting to the metric system. The Clean Air/Water act took some of the bite out of the first problem. There was a lot of talk about "zero population growth" which is no more than two children per family, and would serve to lower populations overall. This never really happened, but is sort of taking place in many Countries now just because of economic factors more than anything. And as far as the Metric System goes, it has been over 50 years and we really are not any closer now than we were then. Are Americans so afraid to learn a new (better) measurement system, or just too stupid?

[modrepub]

15. Birth Rate Tied To Woman's Rights

A professor of mine pointed that out back in the 80s. In every country where women are given a choice they choose not to have an over abundance of children. In the US where two-income families dominate, the cost of actually having and raising children places limits on most families. Tack on most people delay having children until they have more stable careers and finances there's usually less window to have them.

[NickB79]

21. Yeah, clearly we've defused the population bomb

By consuming and wiping out most of the other species on the planet for farmland and cities.

Good job, tool monkeys!