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

81–90 of 280 posts

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#81

Post by jaegerpicker »

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 ignore them it's very likely that we will make human kinds worst nightmares come true.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#82

Post by jaegerpicker »

saddlerustle wrote: post #77
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.

If we were running low on resources for food production you'd expect to see food prices increasing. But broadly, food is cheaper than ever.

Food has two types of cost, market value and ecosystem cost. It always has been this case. It's the very reason that crop rotation was discovered. By improving the ecosystem that you farm in (in this case soil but Tree windbreaks also count etc...) you increase the productivity. The issue is that most ways to improve productivity are terribly short term. Think slash/burn.

So yes food is cheaper than ever to buy but we are burning through environmental capital at dangerous and irresponsible rate IMO. The cost of food will stay cheap until it's too late and the land stops producing at the current level.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#83

Post by frockington1 »

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…

There have been doomsday Climate predictions as long you can go back. Historically, look at the flood stories and you can see climate worry in biblical times. More recently Miami Beach is always going to be underwater 5 years from the prediction date. It's a serious problem, but there has always been a cult like following to climate change. Personally, I think it's best to ignore the hysterical predictions and focus on your own impact and responsibilities

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#84

Post by slibhb »

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…

"Proof of Malthus' farsightedness is that none of his predictions have come true yet"

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#85

Post by amanaplanacanal »

BurningFrog wrote: post #61
nahuel0x wrote: post #15

Now take in account the ecosystems destroyed and the picture is very different. We must leave behind the humans-only perspective.

We should always value humans over other species, and if you disagree you're an enemy of our species.

We don’t, however, have any idea how to keep humans alive after killing of all the other species. We appear to be totally reliant on some part of the natural world continuing to work, and we don’t know what part of it is required. Prudence suggests we be cautious about how much of it we decide to kill off.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#87

Post by g8oz »

greenwich26 wrote: post #31
paganel wrote: post #5

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 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.

Per capita resource consumption dominates raw population to a surprisingly large extent. Bangladesh vs Denmark + Norway seems like a contrived example doesn't it? A population of 163 million for the former vs a combined 11 million for the latter. And yet total consumption based CO2 emissions are about equivalent. It's even worse when you look at production based emissions. Bangladesh emits less than half the total of CO2 vs Norway + Denmark. Take a look at this page and do the math:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#88

Post by watwut »

greenwich26 wrote: post #31
paganel wrote: post #5

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 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.

> Bangladeshis spent the second half of the twentieth century having about 6 kids each

This is not true. That was true in 1950, started to drop in 1970. Now it is 2.04 kid per woman. And when you compare contemporary consumption of Danes, you have to compare it with contemporary consumption of Bangladeshis.

Currently, the fertility rates are 1.73 vs 2.04 kid per woman. Which is much smaller difference.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#89

Post by iterati »

BurningFrog wrote: post #72
namdnay wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can value humans over other species without assigning a nil value to the latter

What does that mean concretely? Would you have something like an exchange rate where 2000 chicken lives = 1 human life?

More like "if all the bugs die because we use too many pesticides, the systems that support life on this planet will collapse."

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#90

Post by Supermancho »

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.

Post reply on HN