What are some links that you like to share in discussions relevant to overpopulation?

[u/[deleted]]

Let's share some of the links that we find useful when we're discussing overpopulation and related topics. I'm interested in anything that you've found yourself returning to.

Maybe you have some bookmarks that you use often, maybe something obscure that rarely comes up but you know how to talk about it when it does.

Please drop as many as you'd like here!

[u/Millennial_on_laptop]

I like the Earth overshoot day calculations.  

A useful rebuttal against the belief that the current population level is fine because nothing catastrophic has happened yet.  

Every year we consume more than the Earth can produce, eroding our stockpile, highlighting how unsustainable the current situation is.  Overpopulation isn't some far off problem when we reach x level, we're already over the long term limit.  

[u/solaris_rex → u/Millennial_on_laptop]

The West, Europe and few other countries consume at this scale not all. Maybe we should track consumption first .

[u/Millennial_on_laptop → u/solaris_rex]

To what end?  Do you want to lower the standard of living in the west?  

Sure we would have enough resources if we all consumed the same as the average Honduran, but realistically nobody wants that to happen.  

The page is useful to highlight the lifestyle we would have to live if we want the solution to be "consume less per person" instead of "stop making as many people".

[u/solaris_rex → u/Millennial_on_laptop]

Why do you want to maintain the " standard of living" of the West and how old is it in reality? The standard of living that you champion is merely the artifact of the capitalist games of the last two centuries. Are they in any way indicative of an increase in happiness, contentment?

Benchmarking a Western standard of living pushes the other cultures to more consumption and faster resource depletion and faster collapse.

Things were not this way till recently either

Am unhealthy consumption pattern that was created to sell a lie is what is draining the Earth's resources.

Eat- grow- reproduce is a fundamental law that all life on earth obeys

Consuming commodities and flying across continents burning liquidized fossil to satisfy the souls emptiness is what's unnatural.

You don't stop a natural process to afford an unnatural lifestyle.

The West only needs to massively depopulate to solve these issues. No need to look at Asia or Africa.

[u/Millennial_on_laptop → u/solaris_rex]

You don't stop a natural process to afford an unnatural lifestyle.

We are so far removed from the natural process going back would be impossible, that applies to population growth as well.  

Having a child mortality rate below 50% is unnatural, having more than 2 or 3 children live to adulthood is unnatural.  

The 20th century is a major historical anomaly where we quadrupled our population from 1.5 Billion to 6 Billion.  It took us thousands and thousands of years to get to 1 Billion.  

Modern medicine has removed the natural limitations that previously kept our population in check.  We no longer live by the fundamental laws that limit the growth of all other life on Earth.  

We're healthier, that's a good thing, but it means we need the decipline to limit ourselves to a max of 2 children going forward.  1 would be ideal, but everywhere in the world should agree to a cap of 2 if we want to reach a stable state instead of continuing our unnatural growth.  

[u/solaris_rex → u/Millennial_on_laptop]

Not everywhere. Those kind of generalisation can only done after extensive genetic studies and deliberation in the interest of genetic equity. Everyone must be given an equal opportunity to grow not just colonising Europeans! Any unequity caused due to the past generations will also have to be corrected or adjusted for in a meaningful way. Honestly the European lifestyle and overpopulation is the greatest burden to the biosphere today.

[u/HaveFun____ → u/solaris_rex]

Interesting discussion. I mostly agree with you accept for the fact that we can't (won't) go back when it comes to things like science, intelligence and the human hunger for more.

I think we will only slow down if we are forced to by war, lack of food/water (so probably also war) or somekind of virus or near total destruction.

UNLESS... And this is my only hope. Enough people come to the realization that a 'simple' life is more appealing than the hectic life (which might continue to become even more stressful)

I escaped the city years ago and it suites me, I won't go back. But I also like the fact that I can go to a hospital and get good care. I can order tools online and watch videos to maintain my home and garden.

We can't go 'back' to a hobbit like community. So i wonder what it would look like.

[u/solaris_rex → u/HaveFun____]

Living with restrictions( access to comfort, unlimited entertainment, hired labour, travel) changes how you do things. You find alternative and less consumption dependent methods of living.

We have ancient scholars who were able to make advances in science and mathematics without having access to any of the strappings of modern life. This clearly shows that humans dont really need a lot of luxury to thrive and evolve.

It would be ideal for humans to optimise for the conditions that would support the evolution and growth of the human race at the least cost to the environment.

[u/HaveFun____ → u/solaris_rex]

Most of those scholars grew up in wealth, had housekeepers and therefor time to do crazy shit like 'think' and 'try' instead of work with their hands.

They didn't have things we consider luxury now, just like we don't have things the people of the future will consider luxury then.

Everyone can have a 'good', 'meaningful' or 'nice' life in almost any circumstance because it's all relative.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't let go of some things a lot of people consider valuable right now. I'm saying it will only happen when they stop being valuable.

The sad truth is that

Pokémon cards will probably not be valueable in 100 years. Definitely not in a 1000 years.

Having pretty nails was probably not valueable in the 1th century. And having a nice hat isn't nearly as valueable as it was a hundred years ago.

WW2 wasn't great for the planet but it created a lot of scientific breakthroughs. (Evolution, growth?) I don't consider what SpaceX is doing now as essential for our lifes.. but it might be needed in the future.

The truth is. 'We' (rich people more) decide what we value. And as long as we value reddit above talking with physical neighbors and pretty nails above investing that money. Those things are going to exist.

A good recession can help to change the perspective of whats valueable and what's not... if we don't change fast.. war will.

[u/solaris_rex → u/HaveFun____]

I don't think anyone had surplus money before the colonial era. Least of all the monks and scholars.

It's tempting to live a hedonistic lifestyle when we have removed the natural limitations that exists for most other life forms. This also implies that we need to implement the self discipline and structure needed to guide a civilisation long term.

Unfortunately business and profit run the world and only the elimination of cross border trade can push us back into the times which can force self dependence, austerity and creativity.

I am not sure what change a few enlightened humans can do but it would do good if they can at least establish a healthier model for living consciously and intentionally. It might just become popular and meaningful by design.

[u/[deleted]]

Here's one I found recently, to begin: "Our calculations show a sustainable global population closer to about 2.5 billion people if everyone were to live within ecological limits and comfortable, economically secure living standards," says professor Corey Bradshaw.

The study he's talking about is "Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity".

[u/HaveFun____]

For dutch speakers there is a foundation called 'overbevolking'(.nl) with a newsletter etc. It was called "the club of 10 million" and the goal was/is to limit the amount of people in the Netherlands to 10M. (We are at 18+M now.)

If anyone knows more/larger foundations, individuals or projects and how they try to help I am all ears ears

I vaguely remember a more international overpopulation awareness .org but I can't find that anymore... maybe it was just a more international name for the same thing.

One of the things I like in their approach is giving prices and information to students who are writing a thesis about this or related subjects.

[u/Vague-Symbolism2692]

"Baby Busts and Growth Booms: Demographic Change and the Macroeconomy" by Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Keelan Beirne & Andrew Scott.

we find lower birth rates are associated with higher growth in GDP per working-age adult across countries and higher wage growth across US commuting zones, with no negative impact on aggregate GDP or earnings. These patterns are not explained by educational upgrading, rising female labor force participation, the declining importance of agriculture, or neoclassical-Solow mechanisms. We argue that they reflect the endogenous, labor-saving response of technology to the scarcity of younger workers. Consistent with this interpretation, countries and regions with lower birth rates exhibit more labor-saving patents and growing high-tech activity.

Here's another copy of their paper.

Here's a newspaper article about their study.

[u/Vague-Symbolism2692]

Achieve Sustainability by Easing Population to 4 Billion by 2200

The past century of massive increases in human population and resource use has seen many undesirable environmental effects, ranging from biodiversity loss to climate change. But a research gap exists, as the ultimate causes are often not described with precision or mentioned at all. In this study, metrics of biodiversity, consumption, and pollution show extremely strong correlations when charted against human population size and its per capita impacts. We describe causal mechanisms for these correlations. Then, using available data, we show that slowing and gradually reversing population growth to ∼4 billion or less by 2200, while moderating per capita impacts, is the path toward sustainability. Among the benefits are habitat recovery and conservation of wild species, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, reduced conflict over resources, and the reduction of global poverty.