Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

My new paper out in PNAS journal today: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...65111.abstract which is getting a fair bit of media attention!

e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lation-growth/

It was actually based on a blog post I wrote a few years ago.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/1...-no-cc-fix-p1/

Fun to turn a blog post into a full-blown scientific paper

Opinions? (PM me if you want the PDF of the full paper).

Barry

[AndrewJ]

Bring back Soylent green???

It may not be a quick fix, but thats no reason to not start.
I agree population control is a subject most people run from like the plague, but it has to be addressed as part of the problem.

Also, it would be interesting to see in parallel who can come up with an economic theory that allows a stable population to exist, vs the current requirement for an ever expanding consumer base supported by a proportionally massive pool of extremely poor workers.
No current theory allows all people in an economy to be "well off" let alone rich, unless you own oilfields.

Andrew

[deanm (Dean)]

Well done!

I've only ever managed a single paper in PNAS (with a certain ancient DNA colleague of yours....!)

Dean

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Dean, I'm at a workshop right now on Quaternary extinctions, and that certain aDNA colleague is sitting right next to me!

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

congrats Barry,

good to see population / over population in the headlines again -it always seems to be missed / avoided in conversation and really is the biggest problem for environmental degradation.

on the matter of aDNA, you can't point me to a relatively up to date listing of European aDNA? Apart from a few of the main ones its hard to find.

[Ric]

A fascinating read Barry

Thankyou for posting.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Russell, yes, this is the most recent paper on the origin of the European genome. Three lineages is the key number!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13673.html

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Russell, yes, this is the most recent paper on the origin of the European genome. Three lineages is the key number!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13673.html

excellent thanks for that Barry!!

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

My new paper out in PNAS journal today: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...65111.abstract which is getting a fair bit of media attention!

e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lation-growth/

It was actually based on a blog post I wrote a few years ago.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/1...-no-cc-fix-p1/

Fun to turn a blog post into a full-blown scientific paper

Opinions? (PM me if you want the PDF of the full paper).

Barry

I haven't had a chance to read the paper but the results don't sound surprising. Population control would naturally be a slow mechanism and with life expectancy increasing the effect would be even slower. It is rather surprising that even a massive 'mortality event' (for want of a better term) would make so little difference.

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Also, it would be interesting to see in parallel who can come up with an economic theory that allows a stable population to exist, vs the current requirement for an ever expanding consumer base supported by a proportionally massive pool of extremely poor workers.

Actually the only economic system that mandates constant growth is capitalism. Previous systems grew from greed/ambition but could, and did, remain static for quite long periods of time. That is certainly true of hunter-gatherers but also even for absolute monarchies. The Roman empire was at times static for (I think) hundreds of years.

Socialism of course promises the same. Production geared to human need and no profit motive. The issue is how to make it a working system. [Having a proletarian revolution is a country where the proletariat dominates would be a good start - it was only 5% of the population in Russian and probably less in China and Cuba.] However, given what a fraught and emotional topic that is, I plan to leave it right here.

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Dean, I'm at a workshop right now on Quaternary extinctions...

And speaking of fraught and emotional topics .... have hostilities commenced yet?

[AndrewJ]

Gday David

Actually the only economic system that mandates constant growth is capitalism.

Not sure thats totally correct any more.

Previous systems grew from greed/ambition but could, and did, remain static for quite long periods of time.

Yep, but we now have cheap transport and communications at our fingertips, and a rule of law that ( tries ) to stop petty dictatorships setting up.
I reckon a new system will be needed, esp when dealing with an educated peasantry. The arab spring, and whats starting to happen in China indicate the poor arent going to be happy to stay that way for much longer, esp when they can now see how the leaders live.
Its going to be an interesting few decades ahead

Andrew

[Marios (Marios)]

Over population is a direct result of poverty, many hands make light work to survive. You only need to look to the west for shrinking populations thats why immigration helps keep up with the death toll.


"It may not be a quick fix, but thats no reason to not start."

I assure you it wont take long before we end up with a Chinese model were life no longer matters and abortions are forced at gun point.

Population control is always a favorite topic of the so called environmental movement and the ultra rich. The wont be partcipating I assure you the want to enforce this on the sheepeople, that's you and me.

None has the right to interfere with our god given liberty's!

[xelasnave]

Congratulations Barry
I enjoyed the read but it seems even a good cull will still see more humans.
Very well done you should be proud.

[xelasnave]

We need to miniaturise ourselves.
So after a century or two we evolve to be only one meter high..or smaller...More humans but a smaller bio mass..being smaller would solve everything and space travel would require smaller ships...sounded silly at first but when you think it thru there are countless advantages if humans we much smaller...

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Opinions? (PM me if you want the PDF of the full paper).

Barry

We will see in the near future who is right. I think the human species is more like a virus, intent n destroying its host. I suspect the "host" is starting to fight back.

[rmuhlack (Richard)]

Well done Barry. I'd be happy to get any sort of peer-reviewed publication out of a blog post...but to get a paper in PNAS, well that is quite the coup

[lazjen (Chris)]

I read the links in the first post - very interesting and it's good to see it laid out.

Supply and demand issues for resources (food, water, etc) normally sort out excessive populations in nature - too many predators for prey, the predator population crashes, etc. The same will apply for humans eventually, although the survivors will be based on who can control the resources and fend off those that want them. It will be equally messy, brutal, inhumane and downright grim when this becomes more of the norm in the world.

Population control or reduction will never be achieved through any means of self-control or enlightenment. It will only ever occur through making alternatives available that make reproduction less appealing. Western society has done that (sort of) by consumerism and increased standard of living - you need to money to buy stuff however raising a child cuts into the money you could otherwise spend on stuff - it's a tradeoff.

Our means of consuming and higher standards of living can't be replicated for everyone with our current approach - not enough energy, too much of the wrong type, limited materials, etc. However, I wonder how far we would need to uplift living standards and consumerism world-wide to get the voluntary population reduction choices we're seeing in Western society? And what parts of these would have the greatest effect? I suspect even the minimum baseline would be too hard to achieve (mostly because of politics, religion, greed, etc), but it would be interesting to know.

And of course, raising the living standards would actually make the population issue more of a problem in the short term as you're likely to increase life expectancy...

[deanm (Dean)]

Scored a write-up in New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VFFiqvmUeSo

Dean

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Natural attrition. But since we are always finding ways to save people and extend lives the population is older than it should be which means higher unnatural population

[Spookyer (Brett)]

The biggest driver of environmental problems is the rise in the human population. The more of us there is the bigger the problem.

Given this fact I must say I have never understood government policy on this.
On one hand the govt spends millions of dollars a year on protecting the environment. On the other hand they pay people a bonus to have more babies. Go figure.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

More people means more tax to pay for the things more people need. Means more people to pay tax to pay for the things more people need. Means more people to pay tax to pay for the things more people need. Means more people to pay tax to pay for the things more people need.
Wait I'm starting to see a pattern. Means the planet is in trouble