Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Population Bomb

theratchet.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: No Population Bomb

#11

Post by kzrdude »

reasonattlm wrote: post #6

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.ph... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ "For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging a…

I see a quote where the estimated possible population is basically derived directly from the land area required for habitation alone which is rubbish.

We need to account for resource use as in food, energy, fertilizer, freshwater etc.

I hope you'll feel refreshed to hear about a different resource peak than the usual, here's about limited phosphorus for fertilizer: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-lifeare.ht...

Re: No Population Bomb

#12

Post by youngerdryas »

kzrdude wrote: post #11
reasonattlm wrote: post #6

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.ph... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ "For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging a…

I see a quote where the estimated possible population is basically derived directly from the land area required for habitation alone which is rubbish. We need to account for resource use as in food, energy, fertilizer, freshwater etc. I hope you'll feel refreshed to hear about a different resource peak than the usual, here's about limited phosphorus for fertilizer: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-li…

Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.

Re: No Population Bomb

#13

Post by nolok »

cpursley wrote: post #10

I wonder if the lower frequency in nation-state warfare is an effect of increasing education levels of females?

No, it is an effect of the cold war and nuclear weapons. Oh and also, no war in western europe because germany/france/uk beating the others wouldn't mean automatic world domination anymore, so we teamed up against the big guys.

Re: No Population Bomb

#14

Post by ddlatham »

Is there an ideal long term human population level for the planet? If so, what is it? Will we need to create more incentives to have children to maintain it?

Re: No Population Bomb

#15

Post by graeme »

youngerdryas wrote: post #12
kzrdude wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a quote where the estimated possible population is basically derived directly from the land area required for habitation alone which is rubbish. We need to account for resource use as in food, energy, fertilizer, freshwater etc. I hope you'll feel refreshed to hear about a different resource peak than the usual, here's about limited phosphorus for fertilizer: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-phosphorus-essential-li…

Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.

Technology requires support from resources. You can't respond to claims that our resources are limited merely by arguing that we will develop more technologies that use resources.

Re: No Population Bomb

#16

Post by coldarchon »

If someone thinks there will be no population bomb clearly has missed all the rape incidents in India caused by mass abortions of female fetuses.

And he clearly has not understood the situation in third world countries. In Sudan 100 years ago lived 1.8 million people, now there are 48 million people. The territory has not changed, modern fertilizer only allowed a 6 times higher production and there is huge desertification of the soil. And yet this country is considered as being in need for food every year, while we don't send them wood to cook their food. The population bomb? One day the population in Sudan will be too big to provide enough wood or food and yes the population there will collapse. This artcle wasn't interesting, it was one-dimensional.

Re: No Population Bomb

#17

Post by Joeboy »

> We are slowing down population growth because of education, gender equality, the rural-to-urban transition, and birth control.

Apart (afaik) from rural-to-urban transition, all of those are heavily promoted by people who are concerned about population growth.

Re: No Population Bomb

#18

Post by seanmcdirmid »

graeme wrote: post #15
youngerdryas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology races ahead faster and faster while population flattens out yet lots of people insist on doom against reason. It is a psychological problem.

Technology requires support from resources. You can't respond to claims that our resources are limited merely by arguing that we will develop more technologies that use resources.

We have enough uranium mined to last us about 1 or 2 thousands year. Now, with energy we can do things like desalinate water and make fertilizer.

The only reason we don't do more nuclear power now is because there are cheaper options.

Re: No Population Bomb

#20

Post by kstenerud »

While the author is correct in terms of population growth, he has missed one critical point. We are heading into a population bomb not because of continued explosive population growth, but rather because of dwindling energy reserves.

Industrialization and fossil fuels are what have allowed the population to exponentially grow this far. But now that energy is more expensive to extract, food is becoming more and more expensive. We're already seeing food riots in the poorer nations, and that trend will continue to grow, leading to a massive energy shock and die-off never seen before.

This trend could be slowed by massive adoption of alternative energy, but the only currently viable alternative energy (nuclear) is not likely to be exploited in a meaningful way any time soon, considering political and weaponization concerns. If we're really lucky, we'll discover a solar energy tech + energy storage system efficient and cheap enough to see us through before too many people die off, but that's a big "if".

Post reply on HN