Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
I don’t think any of that is objective. Many people, including myself, are concerned about the preservation of other species, but I am not in agreement that fewer humans is the solution. How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species? I suppose if you could definitively say that at a certain number the human population would collapse and cause tremendous death and human suffering I would be willing to agree that we should try to avoid that number. But there are so many variables, mainly innovation, that no one could possibly make that prediction.
But you aren’t even talking about a number in the future. You seem to think we passed the ideal level a long time ago. How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity? And as for “keeping humans safe and healthy” (which I agree is a worthy goal), when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier? When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier? Though nature is beautiful and worth protecting, it is brutal and uncaring. Our main battle as a species has been to carve out some modicum of “safety and health” in a brutal world that is trying to kill us. We have done this through innovation, which was only possible by way of population growth and therefor brain power growth. So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me.
So I am on board with your goals - The safety and health of humans and the preservation of nature and other species. I just think your solution is wrong.
"I don’t think any of that is objective." / "...no one could possibly make that prediction."
Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity. That species-poor ecosystems are more fragile is indeed an objective fact.
"How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species?"
Now you're conflating the part I explicitly described as subjective with the objective part. But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others. It might be that humans are worth more than any one other species, but to think that all else is worth less than humanity is rather obvious bias.
"How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity?"
For the reasons given. You can disagree with those, but please don't pretend that I didn't give them.
Also, what is meant by 'half the human population'? Even if 700 trillion humans populated the planet, that would only be an infinitesimal sampling of all possible humans. *Any* population level is only a portion of what could be. IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.
"...when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier?"
Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.
"When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier?" / "So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me."
Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.
"...innovation..."
Leads to both good and evil. Eg. the day will soon come when amateurs can create whole new viruses in their garage labs. We've been lucky so far, but there's no a priori reason to just assume that solutions will always be found in time to address the new problems that we create for ourselves.
Beyond space-time itself, Nature gives us no examples whatsoever of endless exponential growth. Trends are always capped by cycles or crashes. Belief in eternal progress is far more religious than empirical.
—“Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity.”
This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that “our present population is already several times larger than it should be.” By the way, this is an example of a straw man. The one you accused me of was not.
—“Now you're conflating …But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others…”
Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective.
Ok so you have 2 buttons. One kills all humans and the other kills ten thousand other species. Which do you push? Sounds silly, but the idea that humans “couldn’t possibly” be worth more than thousands of other species is wrong. Humans could possibly be worth more, and I believe they are.
—“Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.”
Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man. But let me explain why my argument is not a straw man. Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better. And you defined “better” in terms of the health of the ecosystem and the health and safety of humans. I was giving you 2 real life examples (1800 and hunter gatherer days) to show that population growth led to better human health and safety. That is a direct response to your claim. That is not a straw man.
—“Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?
—“….IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.”
You are playing this game where you discount people who do not yet exist yet heavily consider the value of animals that do not yet exist. If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical. But to save future animals (who do not currently exist) we would need to forego the creation of future humans (who do not currently exist). You believe NOT doing this would be unethical. I don't follow.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Good comments, Steve. I wouldn't think any policy should be crafted down to the level of a family, but should rather be a broad measure of the entire country. After all, that's what matters. And you have some people who will have several children, some infant mortality, some who have no children. The replacement rate is about 2 kids anyways. But you are right, there are huge potential moral risks here. Maybe you start by saying something like, "do what you want, but your ability to emigrate to certain countries may be limited if our aggregate birth rate is too high". In other words, they can't externalize the problem by exporting people they can't take care of. Still, your point is well-taken. It's a pretty fundamental right. If a government seeks to control that (China did, of course), what's next?
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
All great questions, and I don't have all the answers. You certainly wouldn't want to get in the business of favoring particular ethnic groups, here or anywhere else. And I would "roll" in the changes. For example, you might target a rolling 5 year period of birth rates that wouldn't start for the next 5 years, to give countries time to message, to adjust, etc. If the aid we're giving truly has value to the recipient nations, I would think those countries would consider the trade-offs and make their own decisions. You might also have to limit their ability to migrate to other countries to encourage internal reform. This is tricky stuff and would have to be thoroughly thought out, but we already tie all kinds of aid to all kinds of metrics. We have birth rates in a number of countries whose families and nations clearly can't accommodate. This will lead to a scarcity of resources, more conflict and endless migration to richer countries which will in effect have to subsidize these birth rates. I don't have all the answers, but I think it's a conversation that is worth having.
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.
700 trillion. Have you considered quality of life under those (impossible) conditions?
Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
I don’t think any of that is objective. Many people, including myself, are concerned about the preservation of other species, but I am not in agreement that fewer humans is the solution. How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species? I suppose if you could definitively say that at a certain number the human population would collapse and cause tremendous death and human suffering I would be willing to agree that we should try to avoid that number. But there are so many variables, mainly innovation, that no one could possibly make that prediction.
But you aren’t even talking about a number in the future. You seem to think we passed the ideal level a long time ago. How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity? And as for “keeping humans safe and healthy” (which I agree is a worthy goal), when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier? When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier? Though nature is beautiful and worth protecting, it is brutal and uncaring. Our main battle as a species has been to carve out some modicum of “safety and health” in a brutal world that is trying to kill us. We have done this through innovation, which was only possible by way of population growth and therefor brain power growth. So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me.
So I am on board with your goals - The safety and health of humans and the preservation of nature and other species. I just think your solution is wrong.
"I don’t think any of that is objective." / "...no one could possibly make that prediction."
Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity. That species-poor ecosystems are more fragile is indeed an objective fact.
"How do you weigh the value of the existence of some large number of humans vs the value of the well being or existence of other species?"
Now you're conflating the part I explicitly described as subjective with the objective part. But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others. It might be that humans are worth more than any one other species, but to think that all else is worth less than humanity is rather obvious bias.
"How can you say that it would be a better situation if half the human population didn’t exist so that there was more unspoiled nature and biodiversity?"
For the reasons given. You can disagree with those, but please don't pretend that I didn't give them.
Also, what is meant by 'half the human population'? Even if 700 trillion humans populated the planet, that would only be an infinitesimal sampling of all possible humans. *Any* population level is only a portion of what could be. IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.
"...when the population was at 1 billion in 1800 were humans safer and healthier?"
Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.
"When the population was a couple hundred thousand and we were part of the food chain and in harmony with nature, were humans safer and healthier?" / "So claiming fewer humans will result in improved safety and health seems backwards to me."
Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.
"...innovation..."
Leads to both good and evil. Eg. the day will soon come when amateurs can create whole new viruses in their garage labs. We've been lucky so far, but there's no a priori reason to just assume that solutions will always be found in time to address the new problems that we create for ourselves.
Beyond space-time itself, Nature gives us no examples whatsoever of endless exponential growth. Trends are always capped by cycles or crashes. Belief in eternal progress is far more religious than empirical.
Quote battle!
—“Being unable to precisely say what a safe population level might be isn't the same as saying there isn't an objective reality about Earth's carrying capacity.”
This might have been a good point if your initial claim was simply that there is a theoretical maximum carrying capacity of earth. That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that “our present population is already several times larger than it should be.” By the way, this is an example of a straw man. The one you accused me of was not.
—“Now you're conflating …But yeah, there is something pseudo-objective about noting that a single species couldn't possibly be worth more than thousands of others…”
Pseudo-objective? So in other words, subjective.
Ok so you have 2 buttons. One kills all humans and the other kills ten thousand other species. Which do you push? Sounds silly, but the idea that humans “couldn’t possibly” be worth more than thousands of other species is wrong. Humans could possibly be worth more, and I believe they are.
—“Heck, if we were a population of just one, that wouldn't be safe or healthy at all! Straw man.”
Its comical the person who used a 700 trillion human population as an example then calls my hunter gatherer population argument a straw man. But let me explain why my argument is not a straw man. Your claim was that lower populations in the past were better. And you defined “better” in terms of the health of the ecosystem and the health and safety of humans. I was giving you 2 real life examples (1800 and hunter gatherer days) to show that population growth led to better human health and safety. That is a direct response to your claim. That is not a straw man.
—“Ecologically safer, yes. Rather obviously, health is related to several factors.”
Ok what about overall safer? Or overall healthier? As in were people more likely to suffer and die young in 1800 than they are today?
—“….IOW, a small population does NOT cost anyone their existence, whilst their existence DOES have ethical and ecological costs.”
You are playing this game where you discount people who do not yet exist yet heavily consider the value of animals that do not yet exist. If current human population comes at the cost of current animal well being then we would need to get rid of current humans. You agree doing this would be unethical. But to save future animals (who do not currently exist) we would need to forego the creation of future humans (who do not currently exist). You believe NOT doing this would be unethical. I don't follow.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Good comments, Steve. I wouldn't think any policy should be crafted down to the level of a family, but should rather be a broad measure of the entire country. After all, that's what matters. And you have some people who will have several children, some infant mortality, some who have no children. The replacement rate is about 2 kids anyways. But you are right, there are huge potential moral risks here. Maybe you start by saying something like, "do what you want, but your ability to emigrate to certain countries may be limited if our aggregate birth rate is too high". In other words, they can't externalize the problem by exporting people they can't take care of. Still, your point is well-taken. It's a pretty fundamental right. If a government seeks to control that (China did, of course), what's next?
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
All great questions, and I don't have all the answers. You certainly wouldn't want to get in the business of favoring particular ethnic groups, here or anywhere else. And I would "roll" in the changes. For example, you might target a rolling 5 year period of birth rates that wouldn't start for the next 5 years, to give countries time to message, to adjust, etc. If the aid we're giving truly has value to the recipient nations, I would think those countries would consider the trade-offs and make their own decisions. You might also have to limit their ability to migrate to other countries to encourage internal reform. This is tricky stuff and would have to be thoroughly thought out, but we already tie all kinds of aid to all kinds of metrics. We have birth rates in a number of countries whose families and nations clearly can't accommodate. This will lead to a scarcity of resources, more conflict and endless migration to richer countries which will in effect have to subsidize these birth rates. I don't have all the answers, but I think it's a conversation that is worth having.
"...who exactly represents excess 'biomass,'..."
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
"Bill and Melinda Gates..."
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.