Limiting population growth vs Jevons paradox

linlithgowoil

There are often posts on here telling us to reduce population growth, and actually to reduce the population of the earth entirely.
I got to thinking that this is a perfect parallel of reducing energy use, in a sense, and that - according to most on here - jevons paradox would apply.
Therefore, the less people there were, the more each individual person would use, because the resources would be more abundant and 'cheaper'.
I think that a world with 1 billion people would use exactly the same amount of resources as a world with 6 billion people.
Therefore, i submit that people asking for population control are sadly deluded.
Discuss.

Jake

Good post and good point.
I think if we were to try and continue our current way of life AND reduce the population, then you are right Jevons would apply.
If we were to powerdown I think the population would reduce anyway.
I can't think of how reducing the population as a primary aim would help in the problem of resource depletion, BUT i can see how addressing resource depletion would help in controling population.

Andy · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 519

As has been discussed before. Jevon's paradox applies when the assumption is that resource availability remains unchanged. Reduced resource availability is a different kettle of fish however. It means that the amount available for each person will be reduced as resources are consumed possibly to the point where individual survival is compromised. In such a situation, wouldn't one agree that having fewer competing persons is an overall better situation for everyone? It means the sum total of misery should be less in an environment of fewer resources.
_________________
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4

Leanan · News Editor Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 4490

Jake

Is that a pretzel Killjoy?

If we could manage the depletion then wouldn't the population reduce slowly in a less painful way?

MonteQuest

aswerfawf

i dont think that 1 billion people could use the same resources as 6 billion. assuming that these 1 billion people are living in some sort of population equalibrium this would mean that there would exist an upper limit to food production. this limit is the amount needed to feed the population and no more, which necessarily must remain in equalibrium with the population size. this means that the economy cannot grow.

the social complexity necessary to control and organize a population of 6 billion is much much more than what is necessary for a population of 1 billion -assuming some sort of large scale control mechanism exists. this additional social complexity requires certian technologies and structures to function as a single organism, air planes, the internet, telephones, tv, free trade, the un, the imf, fedex, international corporate entities, and so on. many of these things, especially the bureacracies, would be overkill with only 1/6th of the current populations. they would just get in the way of the organizing of means of life. the multinational corporation would be rendered obsolete in a less populated world. it is these supporting institutions and the technologies which make them possible which use so much of our collective resources.

even to maintain current levels of consumption, 1 billion people would not provide the necessary labor power and would lack the organizational structures to even attempt it (as just mentioend). i think consumption would be less per person if there were overall less people, and consumption would increase per person if there were more overall people. this is basically because more people can do more fancy things together and can have fancier (more wasteful) technologies.

as for how exactly to get from here to a smaller population.. if peak oil doesnt kill a bunch of people maybe the coming ecological collapse will? another somewhat less deadly way would be to grow less food each year than the year before.
_________________
don't wake the sleeping grass

lardlad

Jevons Paradox is not a law of nature. It is a theory in economics that only applies to some extent in some scenarios. People cite it as if it were an unavoidable physical law of the universe.

I think any scenario that saw humanity drastically lowering numbers would also be a scenario in which the folly of increased consumption is painfully obvious to everyone on earth. That will serve to lower consumption and behaviour patterns radically. Humans are not automatons or rats in a cage. We can actually change if conditions are serious enough.

MonteQuest

lardlad

You may be right, but it's premature to reach that conclusion at this stage. We have yet to see how humanity will react when it becomes patently clear to everyone that the party is over. Currently about 1x10-⁷ (or less) of people realize this fact.

Ibon