Is it inevitable that due to rapid population growth millions of people will die?

Hard Truth said:

Everyone dies, but the quantity of people alive at the same time impacts our quality of life.

Click to expand...

Very true. The more people are out there, working, thinking, creating - the better chances I have of a new life-saving drug, a more comfortable vehicle or just a better-quality ripe cantaloupe being available to me.

Hard Truth said:

Everyone dies, but the quantity of people alive at the same time impacts our quality of life.

Click to expand...

That is profound. I did notice a few more people on the roads with me today and I must say, I didn't like it.

RabidAlpaca said:

We do. Lots of people are deciding they don't need little screaming brats to have a nice life.

Which is precisely why we don't need to go around killing people like neo-malthusians want.

Click to expand...

Just the ones in poverty stricken countries who keep having multitudes of children. At minimum we need to stop enabling them by feeding them.

I'm going to use common sense followed by some evidence to back my claims.

It is known that about 1 million people migrate to US cities per day. We also know that the world's resources are finite. And, through biology, we know that when there is a population problem the planet induces properties to curb that population problem. This can be found all over the world, and we are a part of the Earth's processes.

So why have we been able to have 7 billion people on this planet?

Innovation. Innovation is mankind's way of battling mother earth. However when you watch this video (The Surprising Math of Cities and Corporations) Geoffrey West not only makes statements about businesses, but makes statements about these required innovations. These innovations not only bring profit, but has allowed our population to get so high. The catch is, the rate at which these innovations have taken place has steadily increased, because they have to, because population is growing at a faster rate. Eventually, humanity will not be able to catch up. Either we will not be able to conceptualize the new innovation (which would happen eventually) or we would not be able to implement the idea fast enough. Or both. That is the three possibilities.

But think of it this way. Our infinite growth paradigm is not physically possible. It isn't. We can push the boundaries with this, and I will show you how humanity can push it more, but eventually there will be conditions that most of humanity will not be able to adapt/innovate through, assuming we keep the infinite growth paradigm. I'm sorry, but it is eventually going to collapse. We cannot grow infinitely, there is only so much Earth. That is the common sense I was talking about.

But how we could push it more, is essentially have computers do the thinking and execution for us. (Robotics are going to have to be accepted, regardless of the consequences in order for this to work.) Stephen Wolfram is essentially creating a computer system that has two major parts. First, a calculator on steroids, and second, a database of all known knowledge that humanity has. The result? A computer computing the theory of everything. But what I am getting at, is with the advancements in virtualization technology and physical computer hardware, we could create a super computer that would innovate for humanity. And, if the rate of innovation gets so quick, we could program robots to execute the innovation. All of this is possible, assuming there are available resources.

But I am going to close with one more idea, and it is The Gaia Hypothesis. There is a lot to this theory (an overall theory on how the world works) but one central claim is that the animate and inanimate of the planet have a symbiotic relationship. This means, that the planet is a super-organism. The animate cannot live without the inanimate and the inanimate cannot live without the animate. And if this symbiotic relationship gets out of balance, natural conditions are created on earth to preserve whichever is low, so that ultimately both can continue, so that Gaia (Earth) still exists. Gaia is an organism, and will induce conditions to preserve Gaia, life, and the inanimate.
Therefore, I believe eventually Gaia will enact conditions, whether it is heating, a plague, rising oceans, different atmospheric concentrations, what have you, in order to preserve the inanimate. Simply because, the inanimate is a requirement for life and therefore Gaia to exist.

If we innovate over Gaia and consume all resources, we would have essentially killed Gaia. And to some people, this is okay. They don't value the planet simply because humanity is separated from nature. (Decartes) So it is up to us. Do we keep things the same? Or do we change? I can tell you, with how humans think and with how our system works right now, it is all about keeping things the same as long as possible to accrue the most wealth. It could be the very downfall of our sustainability.

Cyrylek said:

Yes, and this is a real problem (as I said). Relevance to the topic? You know that because the early settlers made an exhaustive catalog of species and counted and measured all trees, before commencing the deforestation? It's not "scrub reclamation" - you have thriving woodland ecosystems all over New England. There are few 300-year-old trees, obviously. Because it hasn't been 300 years yet. So...how is it supposed to go? Mt.Tambora goes kaboom, climate oscillates, crops fail, the wave of misery travels back in time, and causes the French Revolution? That's a truly novel theory. You should publish. Actually, that's what I remembered from writing a college paper on Rickettsia, ages ago. But what if it were Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia some kind of an international conspiracy of population growth optimists? It sure does. Overproduction and excessive diversity can kill us any moment now. I have seen that too, and rejoiced tremendously. And the collapse of the USSR most demonstrably had nothing to do with running out of natural resources or with population pressures. Russia is still immensely rich in resources - and thinly populated. (The same is obviously true for the disintegration of the colonial empires in the 1950-1960s). I am not saying there's nothing to fear in the world. There's plenty to fear. But overpopulation is a red herring.

Click to expand...

More puffery but let's do what we can. It matters because seldom if ever does one factor cause huge deaths or diplacements. Your focus on only one type of disaster at a time isn't how Empires fail. fact is when it comes to New England much is covered with scrub regrowth, not the original native evergreens so no amount of years will produce the 300 year old forests of before. What are you calling 'thriving'? Mesquite coverage on our SW rangelands is 'thriving' but not what most of us would call beneficial... and of course you walk quickly away from New Mexico and the Silver towns.

Actually the causes of the French Revolution hinge more on poor crop yields during a series of wet years causing grain crops to rot in the field... not the least bit novel, perhaps to some but not those who study more than the Cliff Notes.

Wiki is an open source online reference service. There is little if any peer review. Much of the after effects of the summerless year was not mentioned. Again disease due to malnutrition counts. Like the so-called 'Spanish' Influenza of 1917/18 the deaths were as much caused by malnutrition as the disease. (5% of some nation's population)

I don't attempt to say one thing, such as a large population, will cause millions of deaths. I will say a large population counting on a smaller and smaller crop acreage, crumbling infrastructure and heavy debt, more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is setting itself up for a major die-off.

Russia has had many large die-offs of it's peasants due to poor domestic crop production, not all due to bad Barons, or Commissars. It's grain belt is more subject to harsh artic winters and dreary soggy springs. These days the Russians can buy food with gas/oil money- a very recent resource- but if that fails they are back to a shaky food production climate. NO amount of American 'know-how' can change the climate.

You dance around the specifics to dwell on some airy maybes. Fact is the US has a very delicate balance of climate, soil, and crop improvement that can in a rather disheartening manner be knocked down despite our 'exceptionalism'. No massive thunderclap like a volcano, but the results of so tiny an environmental input was quite telling, but more like the desertification of our Grain/cattle belt.

Rome had many reasons for falling, one was the loss of the North African Grain belt to the Vandals. No cheap food for it's lower classes, no surplus to feed a mighty army. Poorer health in their cities and more susceptibility to disease. Many in Rome were wealthy but the masses were miserably poor. "Rome" herself was broke and struggled to pay for what it once obtained from conquered nations.

Now the grain belt of North Africa is gone. There is nothing to say our own Western Deserts can't expand. If we lose the grain/cattle belt of the Great Plains just how do we pay for other countries' grain? If a bad hurricane season comes after a bad/dry winter and wet spring for the Gulf and lower states, what is our fuel/food production capacity in other states? Do you know how to plants seeds in a muddy field? I sure don't. What is our current stockpile of grain and food in this country? If our refinery cap is knocked down 75% for 3 months what does that do to our economy?