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

91–100 of 280 posts

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#91

Post by beckingz »

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.

The market can stay irrational longer than our biosphere can stay solvent.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#92

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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.

The article is not arguing that the Earth should support 1 trillion people or some equally unsustainable numbers.

This is not the point.

The point is the racist and genocidal undertones expressed by malthus and repeated even nowadays: "wealthy countries can thrive and use a lot of resources while people in the global south can starve and die of disease to reduce population"

EDIT: why all the downvotes, huh?

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#93

Post by dwaltrip »

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.

I agree that it is a shame that many people make over-confident predictions such as “in exactly 10 years, X will happen”. You often have to dig when reading a story to find out which parts are strongly supported by our scientific understanding, which can be frustrating.

However, nonsense like that doesn’t change the fact that more co2 in the air increases the Earth’s temperature. And unfortunately we don’t seem to be that interested in significantly reducing our emissions anytime soon.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#94

Post by selimthegrim »

amriksohata wrote: post #4

The sheer ignorance of this statement: "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…

Who told (Indian) Punjab to hook up electric pumps to tube wells 24/7 and destroy/deplete their aquifers?

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#95

Post by corty »

refurb wrote: post #35
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.

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 population growth is stopped and prevented in the future.

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

That's why Malthuus might have been a little wrong back then, but basic mathematics or computer science knowledge instantly proves him right, just not back then, because humanity got lucky.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#96

Post by corty »

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.

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

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#97

Post by autosharp »

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?

> What does that mean concretely?

E.g. you value your spouse more than you value a random other human. It doesn't mean you don't value the other human.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#98

Post by saddlerustle »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #82
saddlerustle wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

What, exactly, will "run out" that affects most food production? The remaining soil lifespan in societies with developed agriculture is hundreds of years, and relatively cheap practices can extend that to thousands of years.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#99

Post by BurningFrog »

iterati wrote: post #89
BurningFrog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Which is exactly how someone caring only about human lives would reason.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#100

Post by Layke1123 »

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?

You can assign a value to both that says we should not harm these things.
Post reply on HN