[onlooker]

In light of continued stressing of the planets ecosystems can we reasonably expect Earth to be able even to support lets say 500 to a million humans heading into the future?

[GHung]

Unknowable at this point. While humans have survived extreme climates and ecosystems in the past, we have yet to see the limits of human destructiveness.

This is ultimately a race to the bottom between industrialism and the biosphere's ability to support higher lifeforms.

[Newfie]

I would agree with that logic.

My gut says we could support 500 million to a billion.......IF we used our heads. That doesn't seem likely.

[dohboi]

Yes, we would need not only a lot of cleverness, but also a lot of wisdom (in particularly short supply, it seems).

Even having a slim chance of staying below 2 degrees C requires total halt of production of all ff-driven machines and infrastructure essentially now:

no new coal-gas fueled power plants;

no new ff-heated or powered houses, buildings or factories;

no new internal combustion cars or trucks...

If you think that is unlikely to happen, you would be...right.

And it is highly unlikely that it stops at 2 degrees, since we are already seeing major feedbacks kicking in at under one degree.

Basically, if the earth were a human patient, the doctors would be noting that most of the major organs are in the process of shutting down--

>Ocean ecosystems (largest in the world) in death spiral
>Boreal forests (taiga), the largest terrestrial biome on the planet, currently in the process of incineration
>Most rain forest, where most of the earths terrestrial species exist, evaporating before our eyes
>Both polar caps now in terminal, unstoppable collapse
>Hadley cell system shifting and probably in the process of collapsing into a two-cell system
>Most aquifers being drained so quickly, there will be little there (and likely beyond reach) for whoever makes it through
.
.
Add your own favorite sh!t storm.

But basically this amounts to irreparable shut down of lungs, liver, heart, alimentary canal, and most other major systems you can think of.

Humans, essentially parasites on the earth, will not outlive our host (no matter what certain technofantasists might preach to you about living on the moon).

[sunweb]

Bodhi Paul Chefurka has done an interesting estimate: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/07/pa ... ility.html

[dohboi]

Thanks for the link, sunweb.

It's hard to argue with someone called "Bodhi"

And his final conclusions of how we should act every day at the end are certainly generally good advice.

But in the part titled: Discussion: How do we get out of this jam?

When he says:" We should probably discard the notion of "managing" such a population decline. If we can’t even get our population to simply stop growing..."

He should have put the emphasis on 'probably.'

He glibly dismisses the China one-child policy, and completely ignores all sorts of programs that have successfully drastically reduced birth rates in many countries. And of course he ignores the fact that the population growth rate has been declining for decades.

That doesn't mean it's all sunshine and gravy, but if someone going to present yourself as talking sense about these complex matters, they should at least acknowledge some of the complexities.

The fact is, it is possible--and it has been done--to implement policies that rapidly reduces birth rates.

Whether we will actually do so is another question, of course.

[Tanada]

The World broke the 1 Billion human mark around 1800 when most of North America, South America, Australia and Africa were still populated with low population hunter gatherer cultures. My gut says with human and animal power farming the whole planet we could probably feed and shelter 2 Billion without fossil fuels, but it wouldn't be living in abundance. It would mean most of us live like the serfs of Ancient Egypt or middle ages Europe where we labor 6 days a week just to keep the crops weed free during the growing season.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The fact is, it is possible--and it has been done--to implement policies that rapidly reduces birth rates.

Whether we will actually do so is another question, of course.

Agreed. So serious question: Is it (politicially) possible to mandate a birth control policy (or policies) in the US that "rapidly reduce the birth rate" to a level that "relatively rapidly" reduces the country's population to a more sustainable amount? Say 50 million in 2150 as a goal, just to spitball.

My belief is that as soon as you tried to do this (say implement and enforce a "one child" policy as one example), "family values" folks and others would start referring to "Hitler" and you wouldn't get far, as scared politicians would refuse to back policies angering many voters.

[Newfie]

Bodhi Paul Chefurka has done an interesting estimate: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/07/pa ... ility.html

Thanks, I've read some of his stuff but missed this.

[Newfie]

Dohboi,
It does. O good to talk about slowing the GROWTH rate. It's still growth.

We have to manage the CONTRACTION rate! Sos that we don't over shoot on the low end and drive ourselves into extinction, genetic suicide.

As we are going we are forcing a huge uncontrollable contraction.

Please understand, I'm not really trying to argue.

I'm trying to look at the matter in new ways. Reexamination and reassessment.
Fresh eyes, blah, blah, blah....

[Apneaman]

Oh yeah, that 1 child policy in China has really helped transform them into an eco-utopia. I would really like to see that 1 child enforcement policy tried in the US or Canada. Here in Canada they want more ape consumer babies, not less and they keep offering more incentives to encourage squirting them out.


Stephen Harper announces $3B of tax breaks for families with children
The overhaul of family taxation includes a limited form of income-splitting, increased monthly baby bonus payments and an expansion of the tax deduction parents can claim for child care expenses.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... ldren.html


Harper reincarnates family allowance with universal child-care benefit
It took a former Tory government 8 years to dismantle, and today's government 9 years to restore

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.3018557

[vtsnowedin]

Agreed. So serious question: Is it (politicially) possible to mandate a birth control policy (or policies) in the US that "rapidly reduce the birth rate" to a level that "relatively rapidly" reduces the country's population to a more sustainable amount? Say 50 million in 2150 as a goal, just to spitball.

The US growth rate is already driven by immigration both legal and illegal. The birth rate of American women is already below the 2.1 replacement level. The problem is not to control the birth rate but the immigration rate.
Take drastic steps that reduce the population here and you will only create a hole that other less fortunate people will jump into.

[dohboi]

"My belief is that as soon as you tried to do this (say implement and enforce a "one child" policy as one example), "family values" folks and others would start referring to "Hitler" and you wouldn't get far, as scared politicians would refuse to back policies angering many voters."

I think you missed the part about the fundamental importance of increasing women's control of their own bodies.

Not sure Hitler was too into that sort of thing, but nice try at a well worn, cliched turn toward Godwin's Law here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[dohboi]

Newf wrote: "Fresh eyes, blah, blah, blah...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCy9k_RWlvA

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not sure Who your talking to here.

[dohboi]

...Who your...

[Newfie]

Dohboi,

We all mangle the language occasionally, I more so that many (but I blame the iPhone!)

Staying on something like topic, it is not enough to slow the growth rate, we need a plan for contraction, be it to 3 billion or 35 million.

Do you have any idea of how to make that happen is a sufficiently short time frame?

Not that you should mind you, I don't. I am just trying to frame the problem clearly.

[Pops]

The reason the US allows immigration is not just cheap labor but labor period. I've seen this first hand, if not for imigrants there are just a lot of jobs that would not get done.

Why? Immigrant workers aren't a "cheap labor" alternative, as so many Americans think. They are the only labor available to do many unskilled jobs, and if they were eliminated, most would not be replaced. Instead, whole sectors of the economy would shrivel, and with them, many other jobs often filled by more skilled Americans.

In 1960, half of all the native-born men in the U.S. labor force were high school dropouts eager to take unskilled outdoor jobs in agriculture and construction. Today, fewer than 10 percent of the native-born men in the work force lack high school diplomas. But the economy still generates plenty of unskilled jobs, and most unskilled immigrants don't displace American workers. They fill niches — not just farmhand, but also chambermaid, busboy and others — that would otherwise go empty. And they support more skilled, more desirable jobs — foremen, accountants, waiters, chefs and more — at the businesses where they work and others in the surrounding community.

Just raise the wage, you say, and an American would take the job? Not necessarily, and very unlikely if it's a farm job. Farmers have been trying that — for decades. They raise the wage. They recruit in inner cities. They offer housing and transport and countless other benefits. Still, no one shows — or stays on the job, which is outdoors and grueling and must get done, no matter how hot or cold or otherwise unpleasant the weather. And of course, at some point, there are limits to how high a wage a grower or dairy farmer can pay before he is forced out of business by a farmer who produces the same commodity in another country, where the labor actually is cheap.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... ld-crumble

Sorry for the long snip. But the whole bit about shrinking the population comes with big problems in the day to day, especially in the most developed countries where more education makes for lower birth rates which in turn makes for fewer takers of low skill jobs.

Of course mix in fewer energy slaves ...

[dohboi]

Good points, Pops.

Sorry for what may have come off as snarkiness above. Just in a goofy mood.

[Newfie]

Yes, Pops brings up good points, some that were not on my mind. (And I get in pissy moods, if we all go around apologizing it will be a long line!)

The process of contraction is fraught with dangers and problems all along the line.

Yet it will only be worse if we don't manage it.

But, as I said above, it will need better minds than mine. I don't have a clue.