Should we worry about resource depletion and/or overpopulation?

[Eneru112]

What do you think?

[TheTrainee]

If the US is the only one permitted to consume stuff, no. Otherwise, yes.

[Exarch]

If the US is the only one permitted to consume stuff, no. Otherwise, yes.

lol, aint that the truth; there wasnt such a fear of resource depletion back in the 90s cuz we in The West owned it all

now that other powers are rising, the cake slice just got smaller


that's why i think we should focus our remaining resources on nanotechnology

[hellheaven1987]

that's why i think we should focus our remaining resources on nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is worthless if there is not enough electricity to power up.

[Exarch]

Nanotechnology is worthless if there is not enough electricity to power up.

power sources aren't that big a worry for me nuclear and solar and renewables have a lot of potential; no, the resources that concerns me is agricultural land and water-will there be enough of either to feed the world population at a certain point?

eventually India will have to do something about its population, methinks

[hellheaven1987]

power sources aren't that big a worry for me nuclear and solar and renewables have a lot of potential; no, the resources that concerns me is agricultural land and water-will there be enough of either to feed the world population at a certain point?

Well, solar power, currently, is highly ineffecient and probably would not be usable in near future. Nuclear power, although is worth the price to develop, cause permanent pollution that reduce agricultural land and may even pollute water. Worse still, no one guarantee radical groups like Taliban would not seize one nuclear plant and cause whole world fallout if they want to.

eventually India will have to do something about its population, methinks

I have just discussed with Babur last time about Indian population, and I suggest India may have to rely on immigration exportion to West(already underway, cause West a huge panic) and colonization in Africa to reduce its burden; the problem is, Indian immigrants would ultimately cause big uproar like Sri Lanka did, and everyone would start accusing India trying to use immigration to colonize other countries.

[Jom]

I think that this belongs in the Academy.

Moved.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

There is an argument, that I don't know I entirely agree with - that we will always find a new resource to use, and that resources are limitless because of this ability. My dad likes this argument, and says that Petrol was running out in the 20th century, but then they developed the carburetor (or some other machine-thing, I don't know) which used less petrol, and thereby secured petroleum for longer.

Now I don't know about that. I think, I see lead being mined, and then lead being put into the atmosphere and staying there for a long time is a bit unsustainable. Sure, we're not getting rid of anything, but we're getting rid of it as a useful object, and using it now as a toxic object.

Even with that argument, I would argue that yes, we should worry about resource consumption and overpopulation, on a simple argument of diversity. We have a fraction of the megafauna left in the world. I think Chernobyl in Europe has some of the only remaining megafauna in Europe in large numbers. I don't like our unsustainable living habits.. Not only because we may run out of resources, but because regardless, we're destroying the world.

I have a friend who I regularly debate with - we're friends by virtue of the fact we disagree on everything but the love of discussion - who says that if we run out of the Earth, we should just move on. Either to another planet, or create a livable planet/ship.

Now, that makes sense, but I have this problem with the idea of just leaving something we've destroyed. Perhaps an irrational ethical problem, but I don't know what effect my friend's mentality would have on society if everybody adopted it.

[Nikitn]

There is an argument, that I don't know I entirely agree with - that we will always find a new resource to use, and that resources are limitless because of this ability. My dad likes this argument, and says that Petrol was running out in the 20th century, but then they developed the carburetor (or some other machine-thing, I don't know) which used less petrol, and thereby secured petroleum for longer.

Now I don't know about that. I think, I see lead being mined, and then lead being put into the atmosphere and staying there for a long time is a bit unsustainable. Sure, we're not getting rid of anything, but we're getting rid of it as a useful object, and using it now as a toxic object.

Even with that argument, I would argue that yes, we should worry about resource consumption and overpopulation, on a simple argument of diversity. We have a fraction of the megafauna left in the world. I think Chernobyl in Europe has some of the only remaining megafauna in Europe in large numbers. I don't like our unsustainable living habits.. Not only because we may run out of resources, but because regardless, we're destroying the world.

I have a friend who I regularly debate with - we're friends by virtue of the fact we disagree on everything but the love of discussion - who says that if we run out of the Earth, we should just move on. Either to another planet, or create a livable planet/ship.

Now, that makes sense, but I have this problem with the idea of just leaving something we've destroyed. Perhaps an irrational ethical problem, but I don't know what effect my friend's mentality would have on society if everybody adopted it.

Energy never disappears, just decreases in quality once it is used by humans.

This still doesn't change the fact that the current use of energy is COMPLETELY unsustainable. What your dad thinks is, frankly, completely irrelevant. Trust in scientists instead of your own assumptions, OK?

[Eneru112]

Would things be better if we just united? Like.. a one world government? The Empire of Earth and whatnot lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm no sci-fi freak, but exploring and colonising other planets sounds amazing.

[The spartan]

Would things be better if we just united? Like.. a one world government? The Empire of Earth and whatnot lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm no sci-fi freak, but exploring and colonising other planets sounds amazing.

Eventually, yes, it would be better.

[hellheaven1987]

Would things be better if we just united? Like.. a one world government? The Empire of Earth and whatnot lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm no sci-fi freak, but exploring and colonising other planets sounds amazing.

Perhaps, although it would be too late for us to reach that stage before we run out of resource.

Either way, if resource is too little we can always do something to reduce population - such as genocide.

[Surgeon]

Nah, after 2012 there'll be so few people left it won't matter anyways.

[Eneru112]

Nah, after 2012 there'll be so few people left it won't matter anyways.

You actually believe that? Must be some religious freak.

[CamilleBonparte]

You actually believe that? Must be some religious freak.

Yeah, because the world ending in 2012 is a religious prophecy, not the supposed end of the Mayan calendar or anything. Ignoramus.

[chilon]

What do you think?

No.

This idea derives from Thomas Malthus in the 19th century. It was definitively proven wrong by R. Buckminster Fuller in the early 20th century but some mistaken individuals still believe Malthus was right even though Fuller mathematically proved him wrong.

[JJDXB]

No.

This idea derives from Thomas Malthus in the 19th century. It was definitively proven wrong by R. Buckminster Fuller in the early 20th century but some mistaken individuals still believe Malthus was right even though Fuller mathematically proved him wrong.

Malthus was proved wrong long before Fuller arrived. He was proved wrong the moment the Industrial Revolution took off. Thats not to say he was wrong then, no he was absolutely right. In other words, his principle idea was absolutely right, but his conclusion was spectacularly wrong. If the growth of population outstrips the growth in agricultural output, then disaster will strike. You seem to share the opinion of the late Julian Simon and Ethel Boserup... (A level geography FTW). Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if they were proved wrong eventually like Malthus was. A forever optimistic belief that we can innovate ourselves out of any problem is comforting but hardly likelly to be the case. The resource base has been shrinking for some time (and that most definately is a cause for concern unless we . I think that it will be possible for us to continue our innovating for the time being, but I still think that sometime in remote posterity the whole system will collapse simply because we didn't innovate early enough. Fossil fuels is the most poignant example. At the current rate of innovation, I highly doubt we'll have solved our energy problems by 2050 unless fusion proves to be feasible

Of course, any course of thought taken by the Boserupians completely ignores the environmental consequences (look at Brazil and their attempts to increase agricultural output). That is why I suscribe to a mixture of both neo-Malthusians (I didn't like Malthus's original "blame the poor" statement) and Boserupian viewpoints. We can innovate ourselves out the problem, provided we do so early enough (as in NOW) and are not lazy enough to leave it until the real problems start. That being said, it won't matter if we innovate ourselves out or not because the poorest developing countries will probably end up collapsing anyways because their economies aren't geared to the huge rate of development in the rest of the world. You can see that now. The richer countries are trying to cut down the world's greenhouse gas emmissions but the poorer countries are crying foul because they just can't afford to follow suit right now. Overpopulation is already a HUGE problem in Africa. So, when it comes to richer countries, I think Boserup and Fuller were right. When it comes to countries like Rwanda... well, lets just say Malthus wasn't completely wrong. Again, that is a problem with the Fulleran viewpoint. They completely ignore the less fortunate countries on this planet, or otherwise automatically assume they are capable of the same rate of change (I really don't think they are...). The rate of industrialisation in developing countries is much fast than it was in the 1800s for todays industrial powers, but the population growth is also much much higher...

[chilon]

Malthus was proved wrong long before Fuller arrived. He was proved wrong the moment the Industrial Revolution took off.

I am not aware of Malthus being proven wrong merely by the industrial revolution or by thinkers during the 19th century. Certainly someone could have disagreed with Malthus but I am unaware of any specific proof against Malthus before Fuller. If you have sources for someone making an academic proof (not just saying they think Malthus was wrong) it would be great to hear them. Otherwise, the basis for Fuller's proof was the specific development of tin cans and canned food which was a concrete means of demonstrating the errors in Malthus' premises.

Thats not to say he was wrong then, no he was absolutely right. In other words, his principle idea was absolutely right, but his conclusion was spectacularly wrong. If the growth of population outstrips the growth in agricultural output, then disaster will strike.

Sure. Illusion matters. If people believe the Malthus idea and therefore act personally selfish and partisan biased as if resources were zero-sum and finite then they make their self-fulfilling prophecy become real as it has consequences on their actions.

I think that it will be possible for us to continue our innovating for the time being, but I still think that sometime in remote posterity the whole system will collapse simply because we didn't innovate early enough.

*shrug*

Ray Kurzweil only thinks its going to take a few dozen years and we will reach the "Singularity" where the man-machine systems could evolve into something self-sustaining and regenerative.

Fossil fuels is the most poignant example. At the current rate of innovation, I highly doubt we'll have solved our energy problems by 2050 unless fusion proves to be feasible

I disagree. We could already have out-evolved fossil fuels if energy innovation was prioritized in the late 1970s like many futurists (like Fuller and Dyson) wanted. In that sense, Reagan-Thatcher put the world back 20+ years in energy innovation. Even with that delay, many means of alternative energy are becoming increasingly more viable. With the rise of everything from Tesla Motors, Magnetic-Levitation propulsion, recent big advances in biomimetics, continually increasing efficiency for solar power, etc I think our energy needs could certainly be solved well before 2050. And that is even barring any significant paradigm shifting invention (like carbon nanotube light funnel innovation) which could instantly change the game. Many design scientists have thought of this problem a long time and we already have means of solving it. Its just a matter of restructuring the institutions of society to adjust (which is the really hard part).

Heck, Bucky's geodesic domes are far, far more energy efficient than the outdated shape of humanity's rectangular skyscrapers. Compare how efficient heating and cooling a spherical shape dwelling with a rectangular shape dwelling of same size and you see what I mean. We could already have been light years more efficient in energy consumption. So starting with Fuller's inventions (that have never been implemented to truly efficient societal levels), Freeman Dyson and other innovative idea sources(Idealab, Intellectual Ventures, etc) to the cumulative knowledge of Kurzweil's amazing TED talks(www.TED.com) you can find many examples of potential paths of innovation that far outstrip the limits on human energy and evolution that neo-Malthusians believe in.

That being said, it won't matter if we innovate ourselves out or not because the poorest developing countries will probably end up collapsing anyways because their economies aren't geared to the huge rate of development in the rest of the world.

I am not familiar with the work of Boserup or the other one you mentioned but this point is certainly valid. Innovation cannot just mean scientific advances but rather an entire paradigm shift in design, social institutions and technology. I don't believe innovation would necessarily mean developing world collapsing (Fuller discussed this notion and how to counter it consistently throughout many of his books).
Newer futurists like Kurzweil (admittedly another technological optimist) certainly have visions that don't mean the developing collapsing but rather catching up (to some extent) to the wired world.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I remember reading that the world's population is going to crash within a few decades as methods of contraception proliferate, I think.

[Mr. Scott]

nah, those problems won't appear in the future. The world's population will taper off. The only reason it seems like its growing a lot is because the third world nations are undergoing their industrial revolution. The Western countries, which have a more stable growth, show what happens after a country passes the industrial revolution.