Is there scientific consensus on when the earth’s population will no longer be sustainable?
Question by turdnitzie: Is there scientific consensus on when the earth’s population will no longer be sustainable?
If so, what is that number? And further, isn’t it appropriate to talk about condoms and birth control as methods that help to fight over population?
What do you think? Answer below!
4 Responses to Is there scientific consensus on when the earth’s population will no longer be sustainable?
Leave a Reply
There have been predictions in the past, which proved to be quite wrong. There certainly is no consensus, as we do not know what advances may be made in agriculture, water purification, desalination or pollution controls – all of which can enable the planet to sustain more people.
It most certainly is, however, a concern for forward looking people – scientists and non-scientists both. Birth control is something that many people are attempting to teach about so that everyone has the ability to control their family size.
We do not know when the maximum sustainable load will be reached, and we do not know if that population level will simply remain at a more or less steady state, or some drastic population decline will occur from disease. I would bet on decimation from a global epidemic of some sort.
You might be interested in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Roger K
April 24, 2013 at 10:51 am
When?
No.
An epidemic could sweep across the globe next week and lower the human population. Or, we could reach the next billion milestone as the “exponential population growth” follows the graph. You can’t predict worldwide biological events, life is that unpredictable.
As for your final question, as is the case with all subjective matters, is open for debate and criticism. Although I don’t see any reason why it isn’t ‘inappropriate’ to at least bring to the table any number of ideas. Of course, the unpopular ones would get shot down (neuter 80% of all males at birth). But I don’t see why it would be inappropriate to discuss the pros and cons.
From a hardcore Darwinian perspective, overpopulation of any species fixes itself. If there are too many animals in a habitat that their food and water can support, the ones that don’t eat and drink die. Dead animals very rarely reproduce… it is a mean answer, but death does solve overpopulation.
From an “I need to fix all the world’s problems” perspective, there are many routes one could take to try to reduce the human population. It is a sensitive topic for some, because of spiritual reasons, and biological reasons. The most natural instincts we have are to keep ourselves alive, and to generate offspring to keep our DNA alive. It’s difficult to steer people away from their faith and their hormones.
DLM
April 24, 2013 at 11:35 am
Not only is there concensus, but there really can’t be.
Why?
Because the better the technology we have available, the better our processes for cleaning and preserving the resources we do have, then the more life we could sustain.
If we completely controlled every animal/plant/protozoa on this planet, if we had complete control of how energy was used, how waste products were reused, etc, when we could potentially reduce human life to computer programs – there is no theoretical maximum until you start talking about the number of particles you have on the planet to start with (which is changing due to outgassing and bombardment).
It’s a race between science/technology (and our ever improving ability to move goods from where they are created to where they are needed) and population.
If our technology stopped improving now, we would run out of the resources we have NOW. That is, our current population (even if it doesn’t grow) is unsustainable. We’re polluting and consuming faster than the Earth can re-generate.
Elana
April 24, 2013 at 12:25 pm
There isn’t. Sustainable means many different things and it’s hard to predict technology. Though I’ve heard many say the ideal number would be 1 or 2 billion.
Ratz
April 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm