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

31–40 of 280 posts

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#31

Post by greenwich26 »

paganel wrote: post #5
Synaesthesia wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage to survive. Thus there isn't really a threat to anyone else. There's enough food to feed everyone, and the only problem remaining is political and with distribution. It would not be difficult or expensive to end world hunger, cents a person.

> Bangladesh has some struggles. It is the most densely populated (large) country on earth. They have major floods often which cause big problems. But they manage to survive Countries like Denmark and Norway are a lot more detrimental to the planet's ecosystem because they consume a lot, lot more per capita compared to what Bangladesh does (and they consume lots of bad things that Bangladeshi people do not consume).

Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each, while Danes and Norwegians were having less than 2. Why is that factor excluded from your assignment of which country is "more detrimental to the ecosystem"? The Bangladeshi behaviour of having 6 kids each from 1950-1990 is overall far more detrimental than the Norwegian behaviour of consuming a lot per capita.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#32

Post by TulliusCicero »

Fricken wrote: post #24
chiefalchemist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the environment and more specifically climate change, it's not overpopulation per se but a growing middle class. The middle class, drives cars, have larger homes (to heat, cool and furnish) and so on. A million people in poverty is not the same as a million living a traditional middle class lifestyle.

It's either middle class people consuming huge amounts of resources per person, or it's subsistence dwellers cranking out 5 kids for every fertile woman.

The latter seems to be solving itself, as birth rates are steadily on the decline. Though it tends to happen in conjunction with development (and thus more intensive energy usage).

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#33

Post by TulliusCicero »

jansan wrote: post #11

I never fails to puzzle me that a potential rising of the sea level of 50cm by 2050 resulting in 11% loss of land in Bangladesh is seen as a major threat, while at the same time its population growth that will roughly double in the same period is brushed off as nothing. Also, news tell us that in Syria climate change has resulted in food shortage in recent years. But having to feed twice as many people from the same…

A quick googling suggests that Bangladesh's current fertility rate is around 2 births per woman, which is actually just under replacement rate.

The birth rate across the globe has been steadily on the decline for some time, there aren't many more places left where rapid doublings are still possible.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#34

Post by Phenomenit »

Fricken wrote: post #24
chiefalchemist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the environment and more specifically climate change, it's not overpopulation per se but a growing middle class. The middle class, drives cars, have larger homes (to heat, cool and furnish) and so on. A million people in poverty is not the same as a million living a traditional middle class lifestyle.

It's either middle class people consuming huge amounts of resources per person, or it's subsistence dwellers cranking out 5 kids for every fertile woman.

Then we should find the optimal point of socio-economic development with regards to co2 emissions? Or is upward mobility impossible to remove from the system?

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#35

Post by refurb »

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…

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

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#36

Post by throwaway3699 »

jojobas wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are way to many people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living This point of view comes up a lot in connection with climate change, and I always find it incredibly offensive. My dad was reminiscing the other day about his happy childhood growing up in a village in Bangladesh in the 1950s. This was back when 1 in 3 kids didn’t live to the age of 5. Even an RCP 8.5 scenario isn’t…

One may be happy in a mud hut eating nothing but corn, but generally not after getting used to proper construction, sanitation, food etc. Recent history shows that there's no holding previously backwards countries from advancing their consumption. As Russians joke, the global famine will come when the Chinese start using forks. China, India and SE Asia are quickly upping their per-capita production and consumption of…

> We have no moral right to say "Nonono, you can't do what we did in the 20th century and live like us!".

Yes, we do. Now that we know what the effects of climate change could be. That being said, we do have a moral duty to help out. Populations tend to grow slower when they become "more advanced", so it might not be the end of the world.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#37

Post by 0-_-0 »

jcelerier wrote: post #23
adevx wrote: post #2

"The myth, as is commonly told, tells the story of a mid-twentieth century world headed for disaster. There were too many people being born and not enough food being produced. This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. However, thanks to the inventiveness of Western scientists more food was produced, Armageddon was avoided, and the world did not exp…

> This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. ... and.. it does ? https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories

No mention of famine

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#39

Post by greenwich26 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #33
jansan wrote: post #11

I never fails to puzzle me that a potential rising of the sea level of 50cm by 2050 resulting in 11% loss of land in Bangladesh is seen as a major threat, while at the same time its population growth that will roughly double in the same period is brushed off as nothing. Also, news tell us that in Syria climate change has resulted in food shortage in recent years. But having to feed twice as many people from the same…

A quick googling suggests that Bangladesh's current fertility rate is around 2 births per woman, which is actually just under replacement rate. The birth rate across the globe has been steadily on the decline for some time, there aren't many more places left where rapid doublings are still possible.

There's almost nowhere in Asia with high fertility anymore. All 21st century population growth will be African, specifically sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility rates are stubbornly holding around 4 to 4.5 births per woman. And the worst countries, like Somalia and Niger, are still well above 6 births per woman, declining by much less than 1 birth per woman per decade.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#40

Post by simonh »

jcelerier wrote: post #23
adevx wrote: post #2

"The myth, as is commonly told, tells the story of a mid-twentieth century world headed for disaster. There were too many people being born and not enough food being produced. This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. However, thanks to the inventiveness of Western scientists more food was produced, Armageddon was avoided, and the world did not exp…

> This combination of forces would lead inexorably to famine, unchecked migration, conflict and other calamities. ... and.. it does ? https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories

The top 7 regions creating refugees are Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia or Democratic Republic of Congo. None of them do so due to overpopulation, or even environmental or ecological crisis. They're all political issues.
Post reply on HN