World Population and the Good Life: a different perspective

[Leisured]

There was a topic on this matter which got intermittent replies, and is on Continue the Conversation. I am starting a new one, because I believe I can offer a different approach to the matter of world population and food.

The Good Life
Rich countries are moving towards an exalted, automated future, where quality of life becomes important. People in advanced societies of the future will move towards a way of life similar to those of the upper class for whom work and careers and living close to work is no longer important.

Accordingly, I regard the world from the point of view of living the Good Life, and not from the point of view of packing in as many people as possible. The land area of the world is 57 million square miles, but by the time we eliminate deserts, jungles, ice sheets, vast, flat plains used for food production, the land area which is attractive for living in is, say, 10 million square miles.

When I was young, my father had an irrigation farm of a square mile. The farming district, seen purely as a ‘suburb’, was too thinly settled, and I imagine suburbs of the future in rolling country here high ground has houses, and the valleys are mainly farm land. Say ten households per square mile, average.

This gives us 100 million households in ten million square miles of attractive real estate. Assuming a stable population, this gives us a world population of 400 million.

Clearly, food production is no problem for this number of people. Farm the best land with the best soil and local climate, and use the rest as pasture. This scheme is, of course, for the far future, and I assume the world, if it accepts the idea, (outrageous optimism) will allow the existing absurdly high population to drift down to 400 million over, say, 150 years.

In the old topic, jamesqf did allude to this possibility.



Absurdities
No. 1. If agricultural scientists produce a method to increase global yields of a crop by 20%, then ten years world population growth will eliminate that benefit. People then expect agricultural scientist to pull another rabbit out of the hat, and then later yet another rabbit, into the indefinite future, like a dog chasing its tail. This is self-evidently foolish and irresponsible.

No. 2. Scientists have given us more efficient lights than the old incandescent globes. This benefit is still with us. The difference with agricultural advances is that the benefit of each advance in food production is soon destroyed by population growth. This is self-evidently absurd.

No. 3. I worked at an agricultural research station in the seventies, as a technician, during the Green Revolution. Is it difficult to increase food production quickly enough to keep up with population growth? Of course! Proponents of indefinite population growth were in effect saying; ‘you agricultural scientists are doing a good job, and we will sabotage your efforts by having big families’. It looked bad in the seventies, and it looks bad now.

[Erica/NWEdible]

Absurdities
No. 1. If agricultural scientists produce a method to increase global yields of a crop by 20%, then ten years world population growth will eliminate that benefit. People then expect agricultural scientist to pull another rabbit out of the hat, and then later yet another rabbit, into the indefinite future, like a dog chasing its tail. This is self-evidently foolish and irresponsible.

No. 2. Scientists have given us more efficient lights than the old incandescent globes. This benefit is still with us. The difference with agricultural advances is that the benefit of each advance in food production is soon destroyed by population growth. This is self-evidently absurd.

No. 3. I worked at an agricultural research station in the seventies, as a technician, during the Green Revolution. Is it difficult to increase food production quickly enough to keep up with population growth? Of course! Proponents of indefinite population growth were in effect saying; ‘you agricultural scientists are doing a good job, and we will sabotage your efforts by having big families’. It looked bad in the seventies, and it looks bad now.

As long as we are grossly generalizing, population growth isn't really about global calorie production. If availability of more calories led to more babies we'd expect the U.S. to have the highest per capita birth rates in the world.

The reason most women have large families and contribute to an ever growing population isn't abundance, it's scarcity. It's not an extra 20% of available food, it's a lack of life choices and circumstances that allow women to control their own reproductive potential and explore options beyond making babies. It's also the sad reality that in much of the world, many children will not live to adulthood. Population growth rate control is most ethically and effectively accomplished via the promotion of woman's rights and opportunities globally, and better healthcare and sanitation to reduce childhood death. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but when women have opportunities and a reasonable expectation that the children they have will live to adulthood, the pressure on women to make babies goes way down and woman tend to naturally opt for smaller families.

About that 400 million number... The world population is currently a bit over 7 billion. The US population alone is about 310 million. So you're looking at a massive global population decrease to get to a "sustainable" 400 million population.  I don't think even Malthus had such grim die-off numbers as those. I can't imagine any scenario in which the global population would self-select into such negative growth rates. The only way I see that the global population could drop that low is a pandemic that would make the Black Death look like a sniffle, or a massive environmental crisis, neither of which sound particularly attractive.

[Jennifer in Ottawa]

Agricultural advances usually have the result of lowering birth rates, though (as well as general education levels, medical availability, female freedoms and rights, etc).  Countries that are still experiencing high birth rates are those which are not as far progressed in the agricultural development cycle. 

Indeed, research shows that developed countries (and advanced developing countries) have fallen well below the replacement rate already. Global population increase is only coming from underdeveloped nations.  As those nations approach then reach developed status, their birth rates will fall accordingly.

Logically there will be a peak of human population.  Even once parity has been achieved between countries, population will be more or less stable.  There will always be a mismatch between available males and females, so some will go without mates.  There will always be those who choose not to mate, and there will always be infertile people. 

Since two children are required of a couple to replace themselves, couples having one or no children drop the birth rate below replacement.  Couples having 3 or more children raise the birth rate.  Eventually these outliers should cancel each other out bringing global birth rates to replacement level only.  Of course graphically population should appear as a wave over time after that, as wars/disease outbreak cause the numbers to fall, and subsequent baby booms cause the numbers to rise.

So, what we ought to be striving for is the advancement of all nations to developed status, starting with advanced agriculture and obviously addressing all the other factors which affect birth rates.

[matchewed]

You're using a[n] (arbitrary) 400 million people per 10 million miles² right? So that is a population density of 40 people/miles². The population density of NY City is 26,403/mi², NY State - 402/mi², and the US - 80/mi². I think your numbers are a bit off from reality. How much land are you assuming people need/want? You're assuming the population density of Oregon for illustrative purposes as the only sustainable population density.

[PloddingInsight]

First, there will always be people that love living packed into cities.  I am not one of them, but I'm sure there is a prevalent personality type that would absolutely go mad in a situation of 10 houses per square mile.  People want to live where things are happening.

The state of New York has a density of 417 per square mile, more than 40 times higher than your estimate.  And yet it contains the Catskills, the Adirondacks, and the finger lakes.  Because to many people, living in NYC is the "good life".  Humans are social creatures.

[acroy]

Time to stop worrying about World Population & start planning for Solar System/Galaxy/Universe population. Dam ya'll one-worlders are so narrow-sighted. Go outside at night & look up. There's infinite (far as we know) resources out there, just separated by a bigger ocean. Let's go!!

[simonsez]

As long as we are grossly generalizing, population growth isn't really about global calorie production. If availability of more calories led to more babies we'd expect the U.S. to have the highest per capita birth rates in the world.

The reason most women have large families and contribute to an ever growing population isn't abundance, it's scarcity. It's not an extra 20% of available food, it's a lack of life choices and circumstances that allow women to control their own reproductive potential and explore options beyond making babies. It's also the sad reality that in much of the world, many children will not live to adulthood. Population growth rate control is most ethically and effectively accomplished via the promotion of woman's rights and opportunities globally, and better healthcare and sanitation to reduce childhood death. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but when women have opportunities and a reasonable expectation that the children they have will live to adulthood, the pressure on women to make babies goes way down and woman tend to naturally opt for smaller families.

Excellent post.  Quality over quantity in its most natural form all complete with a lack of force, equal rights/access for all, and a more educated citizenry.  I can't help but think of Mike Judge's Idiocracy in a way when reading this thread.

[Grid]

[Initial post]

As long as we are grossly generalizing, population growth isn't really about global calorie production. If availability of more calories led to more babies we'd expect the U.S. to have the highest per capita birth rates in the world.

The reason most women have large families and contribute to an ever growing population isn't abundance, it's scarcity. It's not an extra 20% of available food, it's a lack of life choices and circumstances that allow women to control their own reproductive potential and explore options beyond making babies. It's also the sad reality that in much of the world, many children will not live to adulthood. Population growth rate control is most ethically and effectively accomplished via the promotion of woman's rights and opportunities globally, and better healthcare and sanitation to reduce childhood death. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but when women have opportunities and a reasonable expectation that the children they have will live to adulthood, the pressure on women to make babies goes way down and woman tend to naturally opt for smaller families.

About that 400 million number... The world population is currently a bit over 7 billion. The US population alone is about 310 million. So you're looking at a massive global population decrease to get to a "sustainable" 400 million population.  I don't think even Malthus had such grim die-off numbers as those. I can't imagine any scenario in which the global population would self-select into such negative growth rates. The only way I see that the global population could drop that low is a pandemic that would make the Black Death look like a sniffle, or a massive environmental crisis, neither of which sound particularly attractive.

Instinct is what drives the our exponentially growing population, largely sex and hunger - desire in general.  I don't really need to say this, but for emphasis, few people would have sex if it was not naturally enjoyable.  Few people would spend their hard-earned money away if they could control how they feel emotionally when they inflate their lifestyles.  Because of this general lack of sophrosyne (I've wanted to use that word for a long time.), we will continue as a species to behave like a gas and expand to fill the container in which we've been placed.  Never mind that we'll overshoot what's sustainable for mother Earth - we are just following the path of least resistance, which will be met with eventual scarcity, which would result in a population bust, and perhaps eventually we'll learn our lesson and sit steady at the sustainable population level.

Perhaps as Erica says we will just sort of ease into a sustainable lifestyle without a chaotic war that will bring populations down to more sustainable levels.  We will see.  As for the good life, I believe those that will survive will be that ones that are happy with the least, i.e. fewer resources, which does not bode well for the utopia of plenty Leisured first mentioned.

[Leisured]

Thank you for your replies. I am encouraged that many of you accept the idea of a very low and stable world population. World population pressure was a matter for thought in 1965, when I was 20, and it suddenly occurred to me that there was no law which said that we had to pack as many people into the world as possible, nor did we need to risk populations getting ahead of food production. A liberating idea.

The way of life I described is a consequence of the greater freedom made possible when we are supported by an automated economy, which is likely to emerge by mid-century. I painted a picture of gracious living in an attractive rural setting, but cities will exist, and people are likely to stay in a city or various reasons for part of the year. A minority may choose to live in a city permanently. Many people may spend summer in the Canadian Rockies, and winter in California, or summer in the north east states and winter cruising the Caribbean on a rented yacht.

I agree that giving women more choices is likely to reduce world birth rate.

I am well aware of my outrageous optimism in suggesting that the world will allow its population to fall to 400 million over say 150 years, but it is important that people stretch their minds and think laterally.

The key is ambition, the ambition to move to a better way of life. People in rich countries live well now, but extraordinary possibilities beckon.

[brewer12345]

So how many children do you plan on killing per year?

[matchewed]

So how many children do you plan on killing per year?

The real key is optimistically ambitious systemic slaughter. Focus on the less developed areas and you can have a real impact.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/globerem/main/g_age-distribution1.html



Or that India alone has 90% of your goal tied up in it's 0-14 year old demographic.

Thank you for your replies. I am encouraged that many of you accept the idea of a very low and stable world population. World population pressure was a matter for thought in 1965, when I was 20, and it suddenly occurred to me that there was no law which said that we had to pack as many people into the world as possible, nor did we need to risk populations getting ahead of food production. A liberating idea.

The way of life I described is a consequence of the greater freedom made possible when we are supported by an automated economy, which is likely to emerge by mid-century. I painted a picture of gracious living in an attractive rural setting, but cities will exist, and people are likely to stay in a city or various reasons for part of the year. A minority may choose to live in a city permanently. Many people may spend summer in the Canadian Rockies, and winter in California, or summer in the north east states and winter cruising the Caribbean on a rented yacht.

I agree that giving women more choices is likely to reduce world birth rate.

I am well aware of my outrageous optimism in suggesting that the world will allow its population to fall to 400 million over say 150 years, but it is important that people stretch their minds and think laterally.

The key is ambition, the ambition to move to a better way of life. People in rich countries live well now, but extraordinary possibilities beckon.

You're right there is something outrageous with what you're saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbazH6aE2g

[Cressida]

Instinct is what drives the our exponentially growing population, largely sex and hunger - desire in general.  I don't really need to say this, but for emphasis, few people would have sex if it was not naturally enjoyable. 

Maybe in places where birth control is not widely available. But in first world countries, this is just flat false. There is almost no connection between "sex feels good" and "lots of babies" among educated populations. These days, we know how to prevent pregnancy.

[Leisured]

So how many children do you plan on killing per year?

It is amazing how some people do not read. I said nothing about killing, and of course I dont support such an idea. I proposed that if the world did want its population to fall, it would allow the population to 'drift down to say 400 million over, say, 150 years'. Show where I wrote 'kill'. Many rich countries already have zero or slightly negative population growth already. Most of the world will reach a moderate standard of living by mid century, so we may see world population growth near zero by that time.

I grew up during the mad population boom of the fifties and sixties, and in those days it seemed inconceivable that world population would fall voluntarily. Today, the idea that the world population would fall voluntarily has moved from inconceivable to outrageously optimistic.

[matchewed]

So how many children do you plan on killing per year?

It is amazing how some people do not read. I said nothing about killing, and of course I dont support such an idea. I proposed that if the world did want its population to fall, it would allow the population to 'drift down to say 400 million over, say, 150 years'. Show where I wrote 'kill'. Many rich countries already have zero or slightly negative population growth already. Most of the world will reach a moderate standard of living by mid century, so we may see world population growth near zero by that time.

I grew up during the mad population boom of the fifties and sixties, and in those days it seemed inconceivable that world population would fall voluntarily. Today, the idea that the world population would fall voluntarily has moved from inconceivable to outrageously optimistic.

It is ridiculously easy to say "allow to drift". Outline how that works. You've already proposed your ideal world. Any thoughts onto how that happens considering the regions with high growth rates and high populations now? You really think that more than six billion people are going to turn around and say "Y'know what hunny? Let's not have children. Better for everyone that way because of an arbitrary number proposed." /clinks glass of scotch and takes a drag off a cigar.