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

The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#101

Post by dmurray »

Supermancho wrote: post #90
m0llusk wrote: post #58

This is interesting political analysis, but the fact remains that the global population is topping out at several billion with almost all arable land already being farmed and ecological impacts accumulating. All these related problems may have solutions, but reframing the situation doesn't really address potential for improvement.

> with almost all arable land already being farmed Source? I don't think this is a matter of fact.

It's true in a no-true-Scotsman way. There aren't vast tracts of land that are fertile and have been prepared for farming, but are being neglected, because human economic activity easily expands to fill the space available. So with the exception of some parks, sports facilities, etc, most fields in the world are being used for farming.

On the other hand, there's plenty of land that is nearly suitable for growing sustenance crops but just needs a little preparation. We don't always favour converting that land to agricultural use, e.g. in the Amazon rain forest.

However, the claim misses the point for a different reason. Even if all arable land is being farmed, it's very far from being exploited to its maximum capacity. In terms of calories per hectare per year, much of that land could be improved tenfold or more with a switch of crops or farming methods, if the economics demanded it and potatoes became as expensive as steak.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#102

Post by saddlerustle »

corty wrote: post #96
Supermancho wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with almost all arable land already being farmed Source? I don't think this is a matter of fact.

Well, we are currently removing the last big forests like Amazonas for agriculture. Have the population double again, then it's gone for certain.

Agricultural land use only went up ~10% as the world went from from ~4 billion to ~8 billion people. It has been almost entirely offset by increased agricultural productivity.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#103

Post by refurb »

lupire wrote: post #64
refurb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was exactly why he was so wrong - he thought that the limits to resources was static, and they are not always.

In computing we say that all problems are O(1) in the limit, because there is a practical limit to the available resources. The devil is in the details, and escaping the trap once isn't a permanent solution. Feeding us more efficiently now by poisoning our environment isn't a long term solution.

But he was wrong about the growth and therefore wrong about the consequences. Population is expected to peak and decline.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#104

Post by hnmullany »

riffraff wrote: post #78
m0llusk wrote: post #58

This is interesting political analysis, but the fact remains that the global population is topping out at several billion with almost all arable land already being farmed and ecological impacts accumulating. All these related problems may have solutions, but reframing the situation doesn't really address potential for improvement.

Isn't a lot of land in the developing world still producing far less then it could?

African agricultural productivity is at about 1/10 US rates. So lots of headroom for improvement there.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#105

Post by BurningFrog »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #81
BurningFrog wrote: post #63

As I've gotten older and seen predicted doomsdays come and go, I've started to think that expecting armageddon is an innate part of human psychology. I'm not aware of any era or place where many people have not expected the world to meet disaster soon. It's a part of all major religions.

Sure and I agree with that but that doesn't mean that armageddon isn't coming either. For example Climate Change and the Covid19 pandemic, both are examples of very real problems with the potential to severally harm/kill large numbers but both are dismissed with that attitude. I'm not sayin that the sky is falling in either case, though with Climate Change I can't imagine not thinking that, but if we continue to igno…

> For example Climate Change and the Covid19 pandemic, both are examples of very real problems with the potential to severally harm/kill large numbers but both are dismissed with that attitude.

No. I have that attitude, and I'm not dismissing either!

I think they're both serious problems that will cause a lot of pain as they're being worked through.

What I disagree with is doomsday scenarios where they'll be the end of human civilization.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#106

Post by saddlerustle »

corty wrote: post #95
refurb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was exactly why he was so wrong - he thought that the limits to resources was static, and they are not always.

The problem with that refutation is, population growth is O(2^n), available space is O(1) and available food is limited by available space and energy. Maybe there will be advances in science, increasing food production. However, to keep up with O(2^n) we need to double food production in constant time intervals, around 40 years. Otherwise, there will be overpopulation. There is no escaping it, except if exponential p…

> And food production following an O(2^n) curve is highly improbable, the best we can imho do is something polynomial or linear.

Why? All technology has so far outpaced population growth.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#107

Post by corty »

saddlerustle wrote: post #102
corty wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we are currently removing the last big forests like Amazonas for agriculture. Have the population double again, then it's gone for certain.

Agricultural land use only went up ~10% as the world went from from ~4 billion to ~8 billion people. It has been almost entirely offset by increased agricultural productivity.

And how much can we increase agri productivity? Will it grow exponentially along with the population? Otherwise, we will need that land.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#108

Post by OrbitRock »

oilbagz wrote: post #29
Barrin92 wrote: post #20

the dismissal of Malthus seems itself ideological. It's not due to any necessary reason that Malthusianism itself is wrong, quite obviously putting population pressure on restrained resources is an actual disaster. What was wrong with Malthus or the food scare talked about in the article is simply that they made their argument about the wrong thing and at the wrong time, the rebuttal is based on contingent facts. The…

>nobody today really argues for any of that stuff ahem https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/themes/population-pol... https://iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/20140918-PDR-pop.htm... https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2014/02/27/what-is-the-optimal-fert... https://www.ined.fr/en/glossary/population-policy/ Malthus should be targeted by the time-travellers for culling as soon as convenient ..

Those are good things.

We don’t want 12-14 billion humans. The biosphere is already under enormous stress.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11018

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#109

Post by everdrive »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #81
BurningFrog wrote: post #63

As I've gotten older and seen predicted doomsdays come and go, I've started to think that expecting armageddon is an innate part of human psychology. I'm not aware of any era or place where many people have not expected the world to meet disaster soon. It's a part of all major religions.

Sure and I agree with that but that doesn't mean that armageddon isn't coming either. For example Climate Change and the Covid19 pandemic, both are examples of very real problems with the potential to severally harm/kill large numbers but both are dismissed with that attitude. I'm not sayin that the sky is falling in either case, though with Climate Change I can't imagine not thinking that, but if we continue to igno…

I think the earth is too large to have an Armageddon over a very short period of time (perhaps the span of one life.) Instead, things become worse at local scale. Yemen has been having (and continues to have? I haven't kept up) a nice, local Armageddon. The United States is large, and well resourced. Short of nuclear war, there will be nice places in the US for a long time, even if the overall measure of things becomes objectively worse. It may just be that "disaster" and "Armageddon," as BurningFrog has suggest is a pretty bad heuristic. The climate crisis is quite real, but it won't make the whole earth unlivable in a short period of time. Instead, some places will get worse, and humanity will be squeezed into different locales.

[edit]

I do accept that it could become a whole-earth disaster that affects everything, but my point is that this may take generations.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#110

Post by saddlerustle »

corty wrote: post #107
saddlerustle wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agricultural land use only went up ~10% as the world went from from ~4 billion to ~8 billion people. It has been almost entirely offset by increased agricultural productivity.

And how much can we increase agri productivity? Will it grow exponentially along with the population? Otherwise, we will need that land.

Assuming increasing wealth and technology development, infinitely, because there's crops we can grow with no land assuming very cheap energy
Post reply on HN