ConsumeLess

Lol, some astounding conclusions you’ve made from this paper, whose own conclusions are dubious and require further study.

First off, the model it uses to reach the 2.5 Billion figure is the Ricker model, which assumes that once carrying capacity is exceeded, population decline begins. Instead, humans have repeatedly approached local or system limits, and expanded carrying capacity through technology. In fact, because the Ricker model was designed for fish, deer and such, it makes several assumptions that simply don’t apply to humans, and I see no evidence that modifications were made to the model to reflect this. The only place where these factors were even considered was calculation of the fixed carrying capacity, which, again, has never been fixed for humanity.

It is true that our global population is well beyond 2-3 billion because of fossil fuels. But that’s largely a function of energy output, not much else outside of Hydrogen, but that too can be supplied by hydrolysis. This overshoot is a massive short-term issue, no doubt, but that issue goes hand-in-hand with the climate crisis. Fossil fuels must be replaced, and scientists already have drawn up the plans for this. It includes an entire array of renewables that can one-day meet and eventually far exceed what fossil fuels currently provide. simple as, and that will be forced by the conditions, whether it’s population overshoot or climate change, whichever comes first (all evidence points to the latter coming first). Our goal in solving this short-term problem is to push for an accelerated solution, so long-term pain is minimized.

if humanity want to truly live in balance with nature, even 2.5 billion may be pushing it.

What does it mean to “truly live in balance with nature”? Is it harmonic with nature that we raise cattle? Or occupy forests, meadows and plains with farmland? Because without those in principle the carrying capacity of earth is 10 million humans. What about industry, which btw, has never been divorced from fossil fuels? Because without that, we’d be well below 2.5 billion for carrying capacity as well.

This research hardly has the novel evidence to support the claim that overpopulation is even a bigger issue than demographic collapse/underpopulation, let alone as big of an issue as you’re making it out to be. Rather, it sensationalizes a well-known fact for many decades now: Unsustainable practices, have driven up a massive ecological debt, mostly through fossil fuel usage, that must be paid down. This debt essentially stimulates massive population growth which creates a feedback loop as billions more demand more fossil fuel usage and energy consumption. The solution simply doesn’t start with looking at population.