[thedoc (OP)]

asked the Naked Scientists:
   Mr. Smith and Staff,

Lovely decade long series of PodCast you all continually create, a big thank you all for your continue efforts. I just now heard you asking your listeners to submit scientific questions. Concerning Mother Earth's and it inhabits sudden global climate change problem: Scientifically, would't it be more of a logical, permanent and perhaps a faster solution to limit the stresses we are all placing on our one and only environment by limiting the amount of un born humans? This also seems it would be more logical a course of action now that computers are controlling the machines that manufacture the majority of man's needs and desires, thus less and less meaningful labor is requited by it humans. One last thought, it surely seems that many of the problems in the mid east would possibly automatically be solved if there were not so many testosterone filled young men with to much free time and nothing to occupy their thoughts other than making war against their neighbors. The above is perhaps an interesting subject to create entire podcast or two on?


What do you think?

[alancalverd]

Most sentient beings either limit their reproduction to what the environment can sustain, or don't worry too much about dead babies. Humans, alas, do not have the intelligence to do the former and invest too much effort in reproduction to do the latter. The species is therefore doomed to extinction.

Which is a pity because not making babies is surely the easiest thing any animal can do, since it involves intentionally doing nothing.

But alas, politics and religion demand an ever-increasing and increasingly stressed population. Imagine if we all had plenty of food and space, and no worries. We wouldn't need more laws to restrict our activities, nor anyone to tell us that it will be all right in the next life as long as we suffer enough in this one.

[zx16]

We humans shouldn't be too gloomy about the future. We are the most amazing species ever evolved in Earth's history, far superior to anything that's gone before.

We have developed "mind", and "language" and "culture" and "civilisation" and above all, "science".  These achievements should not be lightly dismissed.  We may be the only beings in the Galaxy, or the whole Universe, to have them.

So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing.  What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe. With this proviso - that the humans should be of excellent quality. That's to say, they must all be "scientists", either amateur or professional, like on this forum.

If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?

[Semaphore]

Population growth is a disaster in the making, especially in India and Africa. The average family size in sub-Saharan Africa is 4.5 children which is unsustainable, and will lead to even more problems than exist already, which are substantial.

[zx16]

Can't the population growth in Africa, be accommodated, by opening up land in Europe, for the Africans to come to?

[alancalverd]

You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?

Making babies takes effort and causes misery. So why do it?

If you want to have less space and less food, by all means do so, but don't force others (including your own children) to share your misery.

[zx16]

Making babies causes instant pleasure.  Possible long-term consequences don't get a look-in.  That's why the world's human population is now over 7 billion.

[alancalverd]

Wrong. Sexual intercourse is pleasurable but it needn't always result in conception. Those who say it should, because god told them so, will rot in the hell of their own disgusting invention.

[syhprum]

Not all babies are the result a need for sexual pleasure if you are living by subsistence agriculture they can be a productive labour force from an early age and at a later age as a fighting force to defend your territory.
Better contraception is not the answer it is more efficient and less labour intensive agriculture and better resolution of territorial disputes.
Perhaps the next variety of sentient creatures after humans have become extinct will do things better!

[zx16]

You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?

The points you mention, are superbly addressed in one of my all-time favourite SF stories, Isaac Asimov's "2430".

In the story, humans have actually "filled the globe" - or at least the continental land-surface of it - with a "mighty population" of 15 trillion human beings. This figure has been scientifically calculated as the maximum that Earth can support.  All other animals and plants have been eliminated.  Except for "algae" in the oceans, which are efficiently farmed to make food for the humans to eat. The algae are in turn fed with human wastes and corpses, recycled by being put back into the oceans, in an never-ended cycle.

The humans live happy placid lives, free from war.  They eat, sleep, "carefully make love" (so as not imbalance the population), engage in scientific research, and have a nice time, until they peacefully end their days, by being reabsorbed into the algae soup.

I must confess to finding a certain allure in this.  Does it appeal to you, I wonder?

[Tim the Plumber]

We humans shouldn't be too gloomy about the future. We are the most amazing species ever evolved in Earth's history, far superior to anything that's gone before.

We have developed "mind", and "language" and "culture" and "civilisation" and above all, "science".  These achievements should not be lightly dismissed.  We may be the only beings in the Galaxy, or the whole Universe, to have them.

So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing.  What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe. With this proviso - that the humans should be of excellent quality. That's to say, they must all be "scientists", either amateur or professional, like on this forum.

If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?

No many here are arrogant fools who think they know everything with no doubt of their own interlectual capabilities. They also tend to be threatened by the idea of there being other people out there doing stuff. Anything at all that changes the world stuff.

That's why they are so infavor of reducing the world's population even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is totally unnecessary.

[jeffreyH]

The resources on planet earth are like a cake, finite in extent. Like a cake, there are only so many slices to go around. If population carries on increasing there will come a point where the environment forces a decrease. There will be no choice in the matter and no fools, arrogant or otherwise, able to prevent it.

[syhprum]

When I visit the USA I am always surprised what a low population density is has compared to India or China, I must write to Trump or Clinton and suggest they do something about it.

[David Reichard]

Yes,I love eating algae,and my daily routine is mostly scientific research,the subject of which is how not to be disgusted and terminally bored.The movie "Soylent Green" was very much to the point.Also,as a senior citizen retiree,I have found the need to invent ways to be useful,and to avoid "mooching" off the younger generations.Leisure and idleness are not all they're reputed to be.

You can in principle fill every square inch of the globe with people, but they wouldn't have anything to eat or be particularly happy. What matters more, the number of humans on the planet, or the health and happiness of every human?

The points you mention, are superbly addressed in one of my all-time favourite SF stories, Isaac Asimov's "2430".

In the story, humans have actually "filled the globe" - or at least the continental land-surface of it - with a "mighty population" of 15 trillion human beings This figure has been scientifically calculated as the maximum that Earth can support.  All other animals and plants have been eliminated.  Except for "algae" in the oceans, which are efficiently farmed to make food for the humans to eat. The algae are in turn fed with human wastes and corpses, recycled by being put back into the oceans, in an never-ended cycle.

The humans live happy placid lives, free from war.  They eat, sleep, "carefully make love" (so as not imbalance the population), engage in scientific research, and have a nice time, until they peacefully end their days, by being reabsorbed into the algae soup.

I must confess to finding a certain allure in this.  Does it appeal to you, I wonder?

[chris]

Why do the humans lead "happy placid lives"? Part of our psyche is rooted in getting out to see trees, flowers, natural wonders and - critically - get away from each other. With 15 trillion people you wouldn't be able to move for human interactions. You certainly wouldn't be able to "get away from it all". I cannot think of anything worse. Some of the most beautiful places I have ever visited have held that allure for me for precisely the reason that there were no other people there.

(I also wonder what accent they'd all speak with...?)

[Semaphore]

When I visit the USA I am always surprised what a low population density is has compared to India or China, I must write to Trump or Clinton and suggest they do something about it.

Cancel the wall......

[alancalverd]

So, as for "limiting population", ie of human beings, I would say that in general, that's not a good thing.  What we need is more human beings, to spread out into the Universe.

If I were in combat morde, I'd ask " who 'we'? and define 'need' ". But I don't expect an answer, so I won't ask.

If the posters on this forum (even the mods) were running the Earth, wouldn't they make a better job of it, than our present politicians?

No. There would be an immediate war between the expansionists like zx and Tim, and contractionists like me, and the expansionists would win by sheer weight of numbers and then all starve because they hadn't actually thought about the numbers. 'Twas ever thus, with each generation of numbskulls driving out the  intellectuals until Germany, Russia, China, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa....imploded. Except China where they intentionally limited the population. God help America.

[zx16]

Alan, when you say you're a "contractionist",  how far do you advocate that humans should "contract"?

Should we give up our present wonderful expansive planet-wide civilisation, with its art, literature, culture, science, and technology.

Abandon the big modern cities.  Forget the libraries and laboratories.  "Contract" ourselves into small tribes, re-enter the self-replenishing forests, and pass our time hunting animals, and foraging for fruit and berries?

[alancalverd]

90% of the world's population have no access to any art, literature, culture, or science that you would recognise. 10% don't even have clean water.

By "big modern cities" do you mean the square mile of architecturally beautiful  London or Venice where practically nobody lives, or the favelas, bidonvilles, shantytowns and slums of all the rest of the world, where up to 50% of the population lives? Or are you in favor of Sixties concrete tower blocks?

Imagine having underground trains with more seats than passengers. An electricity grid run entirely on renewables. A garden for everyone who wants one. One tenth of the present atmospheric pollution in towns and cities.

I'm only talking about reducing the population, not the amenity. I don't see wandering tribes of Canadians or Australians  hunting and foraging (actually I do, but those that do, do it from choice rather than necessity) or living without a discernible scientific and artistic culture. The trick is to have a low population density.

As for the number of people needed to drive your culture forward, Trinity College Cambridge has a population of under 2000 including undergraduates, admin staff, cooks and gardeners.  The only institution credited with more Nobel Prizes, is the entire United States of America.

For the UK, I think a population of some 5 - 10 million  would be indefinitely sustainable. Given one tenth of the competition and ten times the resources per capita, our descendants would be able to lead very comfortable and fulfilling lives.

You can estimate the numbers for any other part of the world by asking how much food they could grow with no input from fossil fuels, and whether they could supply 5 - 10 kilowatts per person from renewable energy sources.

[zx16]

Thanks Alan, I've considered your extremely well-written and perceptive post, and must agree, in general, with what you say. 

That the world would be better off with a smaller human population. But aren't there practical problems.  For example, you suggest that for the UK, a small sustainable population of 5 to 10 million would be ideal.

Unfortunately, the present population of the UK is over 60 million.  To achieve your ideal, how would you suggest getting rid of the excess tens of millions?

Voluntary euthanasia?  As a UK citizen, I don't feel like volunteering.  Unless I see an inspiring example. Perhaps you could you step forward, and be the first in line?