All of Erlich's predictions were wrong. He lost all his resource price bets. I'd say the same will happen in the future. Human ingenuity will defeat doom and gloom as it has for thousands of years.

It requires monumental stupidity for a species to paint itself into such a corner that it depends on some future technology that might never materialize to stave off an existential threat.

That's what we're going to end up doing, though. I don't have much hope for us.

I remember learning a brief introduction to ecology in college. There are factors that will limit the population growth, such as lack of food, lack of water, loss of habitat, predators, and diseases. Human procreation will increase, but so will its mortality rate.

I remember learning a bit about ecology in college. There are factors that will limit the population growth, such as lack of food, lack of water, loss of habitat, predators, and diseases. Human populations will increase, but so will the mortality rate. — Purple Pond

Not in industrialized societies. Medicine is advancing rapidly and allowing consumers to live longer than ever. The main reason certain groups in industrialized societies reduce their average number of offspring is economic, not a lack of resources.

It is unrealistic to think that human beings will ever curb their desire to reproduce, regardless of the limited carrying capacity of our environment. Furthermore there are no natural predators to keep our population in check, meaning the only historically significant ways large scale population reductions could occur--and they will occur--are famine, war, and disease.

The idea that a future technology will prevent this kind of reality is ill-founded, though we may through technology extend the limits of what our environment can sustain (e.g. agriculture) we will still have a limited amount of space to exist in and our numbers will continue to increase. Technology cannot solve what is essentially a human problem.

All of Erlich's predictions were wrong. He lost all his resource price bets. I'd say the same will happen in the future. Human ingenuity will defeat doom and gloom as it has for thousands of years.

. So says @fishfry

Tell that to the people who died in the pandemic, the famine, the tidal wave, the war, the sinking boat, the earthquake...

What has forestalled the dooms predicted by Malthus or Ehrlich are improvements in agriculture and sanitation -- nothing terribly complex. Both of those have limits: Once improvements that depend on large energy inputs have been fully implemented, more energy inputs won't result in continual increase. There is only so much food value that plants can extract from soil. Once the sewers are built, the drinking water supply secured, and routine public health measures such as hand washing are established, more sewers, more water pipes, and more hand washing won't improve life.

So, we can feed more people and prevent many diseases. The population grows and eventually reaches a number (in the billions) where the supply chain is over-booked, and if anything goes wrong, orderly society starts falling apart.

It requires monumental stupidity for a species to paint itself into such a corner that it depends on some future technology that might never materialize to stave off an existential threat. — RogueAI

Precisely.

Human procreation will increase, but so will its mortality rate. — Purple Pond

At this point, however, births are about double the rate of death. To paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge, "If more people are going to die, then they had better get on with it."

Medicine is advancing rapidly and allowing consumers to live longer than ever. — Pathogen

The major improvements in longevity have come about through better agriculture (more and better food -- this goes back to the late 19th / early 20th Century. Civil engineering in the form of sewers and pure water systems also can take credit for longevity. The third thing that has made a large difference is public health measures such as vaccination programs.

"The average age" of people has always been kept low by infant and child mortality. If people made it through the first few years of life, they had a good chance of making it to adulthood. Once they were adults, they had a reasonably good chance of making it to their 60s. Some lived Into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s--not a lot, but some. Even today, the number of people 100 and older is really very small.

Medicine has played an important role in the quality of life, certainly, but only in the 20th century, and not until antibiotics went into production during WWII. Advances in medicine, while very helpful to the sick, haven't lengthened life that much. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, etc. haven't added many years onto the average lifespan. I'm not criticizing cancer specialists in saying this.

Furthermore there are no natural predators to keep our population in check, meaning the only historically significant ways large scale population reductions could occur--and they will occur--are famine, war, and disease. — Pathogen

Those factors you mentioned that reduce human populations are still significant. Natural predators are replaced by human predators in the form of warfare, and arguably much more devastating. There’s also loss of habitat for humans, which menifests itself in homelessness.

It requires monumental stupidity for a species to paint itself into such a corner that it depends on some future technology that might never materialize to stave off an existential threat. — RogueAI

We should have stayed in caves? I don't follow your point. I've got 200,000 years of human progress on the side of my argument. You've got 200 years of failed doom and gloom predictions going back to Malthus and spectacularly exemplified by Erlich.

At this point, however, births are about double the rate of death. To paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge, "If more people are going to die, then they had better get on with it." — Bitter Crank

That’s how it is now, but it won’t go on like this indefinitely. When the population overreaches its capacity, there’s going to be much more deaths.

Tell that to the people who died in the pandemic, the famine, the tidal wave, the war, the sinking boat, the earthquake... — Bitter Crank

Sinking boats and earthquakes support the idea of ecological collapse? What are you talking about? People do get hit by city buses, I'll grant you that. Totally did not follow your point.

We attempted this sort of technology back in the 1950s, early 1960s, at the Idaho Nuclear Laboratories. The project was abandoned as too risky. — Bitter Crank

The scientists who built and detonated the first nuclear bomb were in the same shoe. They had no clue what would happen if the bomb worked. Some opined it will destruct the entire Earth, and for sure its entire biosphere, as they opined that the nuclear chain reaction would increase and multiply, not subside and die off after the initial explosion.

they detonated the bomb nevertheless. The bastards.

When the population overreaches its capacity, there’s going to be much more deaths. — Purple Pond

Malthus said that 200 years ago and Erlich said it in the 1960's. Both turned out to be wrong. Why should I believe you today?

Of course from a numeric perspective, there are more deaths every day since the population is increasing. But that's not an argument, it's just an observation that everyone dies and the more people there are, the more people die in absolute numbers. Did you have a more nuanced point to make?

Sinking boats and earthquakes support the idea of ecological collapse? What are you talking about? — fishfry

Same thing as the Armageddon described by the two Yehova's Witnesses to me the other day. They also named famine, war, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as sure signs of something or other,. I forgot which. I was mesmerized by them... one was a sixty-something beautiful woman, wearing 45 lbs of make-up. She looked as sexy as Pamela Lee Anderson in her best years. I wanted her... could not have her. So I just listened to her until it was time for her to go home.

I'm still smarting for her. Armageddon... mmm... yummy.

Overpopulation is a sham peddled by apologists for capitalism:

"It is unconscionable to call for a decrease in birth rates rather than an end to an economic system based on the maldistribution of wealth between the Global North and the Global South, to leave undisturbed the fossil-fuel industry that powers unsustainable growth while finger-wagging at women in impoverished countries. It’s a transference of responsibility from the rich countries who produced climate change to the poor countries most affected by it.

The emphasis on family planning as an environmental fix distracts us from making essential investments in people and the environment. This includes supporting clean energy, food security, and mass transit, along with accessible comprehensive health systems infrastructure, education, and employment"

"We should have stayed in caves? I don't follow your point. I've got 200,000 years of human progress on the side of my argument. You've got 200 years of failed doom and gloom predictions going back to Malthus and spectacularly exemplified by Erlich."

There is, of course, a middle ground between "staying in caves" and "massively polluting the world", and that would be "living responsibly". You really think we should be trashing our only home this much? Is that smart? Do you believe the Earth is warming and humans are the primary culprit? You do, right?

Delete.

The major improvements in longevity have come about through better agriculture (more and better food -- this goes back to the late 19th / early 20th Century. Civil engineering in the form of sewers and pure water systems also can take credit for longevity. The third thing that has made a large difference is public health measures such as vaccination programs. — Bitter Crank

"The average age" of people has always been kept low by infant and child mortality. — Bitter Crank

The average worldwide life expectancy has increased from 48 years in 1950 to 78 years in 2015.
While improvements in infant mortality account for a portion of this data there have also been a significant reduction in death rates as diseases have become increasingly treatable, working conditions have improved, and industrialization has increased the global standard of living. After reviewing some material on the points you brought up I would generally agree with the statements you made regarding agriculture and civil infrastructure so far as developing nations are concerned.

That said, notice that the global life expectancy has increased 30 years in the last six decades.

In 1950s America the average life span was in the 60s while nowadays the average lifespan for Americans is in the 70s and projected to increase. I would argue that advances in medical treatment would account for most of this extra decade.

World life expectancy figures

I'm surprised no one has brought up Calhoun's rat utopia experiments.

Malthus said that 200 years ago and Erlich said it in the 1960's. Both turned out to be wrong. Why should I believe you today? — fishfry

Never heard of them. But if it’s true that they said the same thing, how were they wrong? There would have to be an instance when the population went past its capacity, and the percentage of deaths did not increase.

Of course from a numeric perspective, there are more deaths every day since the population is increasing. But that's not an argument, it's just an observation that everyone dies and the more people there are, the more people die in absolute numbers. Did you have a more nuanced point to make? — fishfry

I meant percentage-wise.

By the time it reaches equilibrium, deaths=births, we will have further overshot the earth's carrying capacity. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think that this will be so? What is the argument? Similar to what was said in the 1970's that our civilization will collapse in the turn of the milennium and we will be out of resources because of our 'overshot'?

The whole idea of Earth's 'carrying capacity' being 'overshot' is extremely dubious... or simply extremely politically correct thing to say to 'wake up' people to 'do something' about our current problems we are facing.


Remember Hubbert's Peak Oil argument? Here is his forecast and the actual US production:


So let's just remember that globally "Peak Conventional Oil" happened eight years ago.

What has forestalled the dooms predicted by Malthus or Ehrlich are improvements in agriculture and sanitation -- nothing terribly complex. Both of those have limits: Once improvements that depend on large energy inputs have been fully implemented, more energy inputs won't result in continual increase. — Bitter Crank

Apart Malthus' argument being very simplistic, it naturally didn't take into consideration a lot of changes that have happened in the World. And you simply assume (out of somewhere?) that a limit has been reached ...now. Well, there a lot of possibility for improvement as in many places land, energy and resources aren't used as well as in Netherlands. If agriculture would be the same as in other countries as in Netherlands, then your argument would have some credence.

The argument that science & technology have improved our agriculture etc. yet now it is over is rather dubious too.

It is unrealistic to think that human beings will ever curb their desire to reproduce, regardless of the limited carrying capacity of our environment. Furthermore there are no natural predators to keep our population in check, meaning the only historically significant ways large scale population reductions could occur--and they will occur--are famine, war, and disease.

The idea that a future technology will prevent this kind of reality is ill-founded, though we may through technology extend the limits of what our environment can sustain (e.g. agriculture) we will still have a limited amount of space to exist in and our numbers will continue to increase. Technology cannot solve what is essentially a human problem. — Pathogen

Our space isn't actually all that limited though. The resources of the solar system are already in range with today's technology, it's mostly a question of engineering and will.

Well, if someone creates cold fusion reactors, we've got it made. For another 100,000 years,then the same problems will rear their ugly rears. — god must be atheist

The resources of the cosmos are more or less inexhaustible. All we need to do is get off this rock.

So, we can feed more people and prevent many diseases. The population grows and eventually reaches a number (in the billions) where the supply chain is over-booked, and if anything goes wrong, orderly society starts falling apart. — Bitter Crank

How is this different from all of human history?

There is, of course, a middle ground between "staying in caves" and "massively polluting the world", and that would be "living responsibly". You really think we should be trashing our only home this much? Is that smart? Do you believe the Earth is warming and humans are the primary culprit? You do, right? — RogueAI

Climate change and environmental degradation are serious problems that urgently need to be addressed. An increasing population will not help, but halting population growth wouldn't solve these problems either.

The resources of the solar system are already in range with today's technology, — Echarmion

I don't quite agree with this. A man's pleasure ride in space cost him 25 million US dollars some ten years ago. If you are spending that much money (which is not even enough) to bring to earth 70 Kg of material, then it's prohibively expensive. You'd use more fuel, energy, materials, money, and everything else than to justify the return on investment.

The resources of the cosmos are more or less inexhaustible. All we need to do is get off this rock. — Echarmion

easier said than done. There are no habitable spaces for humans in our solar system beside Earth. To get to the next solar system, with no guarantee of habitation, would cost you fifty-thousands billion trillion dollars. I ain't kidding.

I don't quite agree with this. A man's pleasure ride in space cost him 25 million US dollars some ten years ago. If you are spending that much money (which is not even enough) to bring to earth 70 Kg of material, then it's prohibively expensive. You'd use more fuel, energy, materials, money, and everything else than to justify the return on investment. — god must be atheist

It's not about return on investment though, is it? This thread is about how humanity can keep growing. The answer to this is obviously space. Of course, doing so is going to require space infrastructure, preferably including some kind of launch system not based on chemical rockets. That is going to be hideously expensive. From a technology perspective though, it can be done with existing, proven technologies.

easier said than done. There are no habitable spaces for humans in our solar system beside Earth. To get to the next solar system, with no guarantee of habitation, would cost you fifty-thousands billion trillion dollars. I ain't kidding. — god must be atheist

We can build habitable spaces. Not easily, obviously, but there are no physical reasons it cannot be done.

We can build habitable spaces. Not easily, obviously, but there are no physical reasons it cannot be done. — Echarmion

I must assert, with all due respect, that you don't understand the physics of transporting / sustaining human life outside of Earth.

It is prohibitively expensive not only in an economic, but on an ecological scale as well. That ought to have been obvious to you. If we can't afford enough machines to deal with our plastic waste crisis, then we can't afford to send a gram of material to Alpha Centaur. IN other words, it is a smidgen to engineer plastics decomposing machines including the collection of the waste plastics, compared to sending anything 6.7 light years into the great beyond. Not just in money value: in consuming gas, material, food, etc. etc. etc.

This thread is about how humanity can keep growing. The answer to this is obviously space. — Echarmion

It is my opinion, with all due respect, that you grossly, fatally underestimate the challenges that are presented to habiting space outside of Earth.

I must assert, with all due respect, that you don't understand the physics of transporting / sustaining human life outside of Earth. — god must be atheist

And yet we somehow sent men to the moon in the 60s.

It is prohibitively expensive not only in an economic, but on an ecological scale as well. That ought to have been obvious to you. If we can't afford enough machines to deal with our plastic waste crisis, then we can't afford to send a gram of material to Alpha Centaur. IN other words, it is a smidgen to engineer plastics decomposing machines including the collection of the waste plastics, than to send anything 6.7 light years into the great beyond. Not just in money value: in consuming gas, material, food, etc. etc. etc. — god must be atheist

I am not talking about a generation ship. I am talking about orbital habitats.

It is my opinion, with all due respect, that you grossly, fatally underestimate the challenges that are presented to habiting space outside of Earth. — god must be atheist

Because I say it's possible? What challenges am I underestimating?

Sorry, orbital habitats are possible. I thought you were talking interplanetary rehabitation.

The resources of the solar system are already in range with today's technology, it's mostly a question of engineering and will. — Echarmion

By resources I took you meant minerals, oxygen, water, etc. Whereas you probably meant sun energy, etc. Because there is not much else in terms of resources available from space to orbital habitats.

Nobody knows the future. Maybe orbital habitats will be built at a faster rate than humans multiply, maybe they will be built at a slower rate. I don't know. I won't say it's probable or imporbable to make this realistic.

That the Trinity test of a plutonium bomb would ignite the atmosphere was not a serious concern among the Los Alamos scientists who constructed it. Someone quipped that maybe it would (check out Richard Rhodes History of the Atomic Bomb), but this idea was dismissed.

There was some ambivalence about the morality of the Manhattan Project among the small circle of people who had an overview of what the project was about, and there was a lot more ambivalence shading into revulsion after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I've got 200,000 years of human progress on the side of my argument. You've got 200 years of failed doom and gloom predictions going back to Malthus and spectacularly exemplified by Erlich." — fishfry

There wasn't much "progress" during our 200,000 years of hunting and gathering. Innovations were few and far between because hunting and gathering worked pretty well for the small populations of people at the time. They hunted, gathered, wandered, sheltered, and carried on without wrecking the environment.

Round about 10,000 years ago -- either as a state-sponsored conspiracy (some anthropologists have suggested) or as a remarkable and wonderful innovation (as most anthropologists think) we became agriculturists, settled down, and here we are.

While no one can argue with you that Malthus's and Ehrlich's predictions have failed to become fact, it is also the case that no one can refute the fact that Doom has been avoided by an extraordinary, almost incomprehensible extraction of energy resources from the earth, which is not repeatable. Once we have used up the stored carbon that is easily accessible (we are on track), there won't be more. And, of course, extracting the carbon from the ground means adding it to the atmosphere, which has, we find, rather inconvenient limitations on how much it can absorb without highly inconvenient consequences for our esteemed selves.

Per your handle, I would suggest that a lot of the gain in the last 60 or 80 years in life expectancy has been from the development of antibiotics. Pre-penicillin and other antibiotics, infection and infectious diseases were the leading causes of death. Various vaccinations also contributed.

Prior to the antibiotic discoveries, minor--never mind major--injuries could and did lead to death. A minor infected wound could turn into septicemia and from there it was Shall We Gather at the River out at the cemetery. A sinus infection could (and sometimes did) turn into a really bad dying.

In much of the world, infections like malaria and tuberculosis become multi-drug resistant and prove fatal. Gonorrhea is a good example of a fairly common infection in the industrialized world that is becoming quite resistant to the available antibiotics. Some strains are now as untreatable as they were before penicillin. (Gonorrhea is normally not fatal, but anyone who has had it (I have) can tell you it is definitely not fun.)

Various nosocomial infections like Staphylococcus aureus are edging over the line to become untreatable, and it can be fatal.