Can the Planet Support 11 Billion People?

[FLPanhandle]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-the-planet-support-11-billion-people/

At the close of the 21st century, more than 11 billion people will inhabit this planet, according to the latest forecast from the United Nations’ population division. The forecast underlines President Obama’s assertion at the announcement of U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan: “We only get one home. We only get one planet. There’s no plan B.”

“Whether it is 10 billion or 11 billion, it is a big number and this has huge implications for food security, for resource management, for the environment,” said K. Bruce Newbold, director at the School of Geography and Earth Sciences at McMaster University in Canada. “I hate to be a doomsayer, but I do have concerns whether we are prepared for that.” Though population growth is slowing, the total world population itself is increasing, he said, and in areas that are already very vulnerable, like Africa.

This revision to previous U.N. forecasts incorporated new data from recent national surveys and demographic and health surveys. According to the revised estimates, India is set to overtake China six years earlier than previously predicted, but both countries face the specter of aging populations.

Climate change multiplies stress. China faces it more than India, because of China’s one-child policy, which brought fertility rates down significantly even as life expectancy continues to improve. While the two countries will continue to dominate the total population in terms of sheer numbers, Africa will see the sharpest increases in population, accounting for more than half of the global population growth over the next 35 years, said the report, which includes predictions for the years 2030, 2050 and 2100.

All of the 48 least-developed countries, of which 27 are in Africa, will witness steep population growth. Nigeria is expected to emerge as the third most populous country by 2050.

When you add the potential for climate change into that equation, it creates additional problems, Newbold said. Changes in precipitation patterns and possibly decreased precipitation in some parts of Africa, which will be unable to support crops and human habitation in the future, would have repercussions, said Roger-Mark De Souza, director of population, environmental security and resilience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Even today, 20 million people in the Sahel region in Africa, which extends across the continent, are food insecure, he added.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I don't believe the planet can support our current population without overfishing and environmental destruction. Glad I'll be dead by 2100.

[el_bryanto]

1. Presumably there will be a die off at some point

I'd like to believe that we will come up with some new technology that will help us solve the problem; but that's probably a slim hope.

Bryant

[FLPanhandle]

4. Before the die off, it'll be ugly

Humans will strain the seas for every edible fish, plow under every forest for fields, eat every animal, and have some incredible wars.

When we go down, we are taking a good chunk of the environment with us.

[Javaman]

9. climate change will take care of a chunk of humanity.

once it becomes too hot and dry to grow anything, people will starve, but before they starve, there will be more wars, which will also take care of another chuck of humanity.

[Straw Man]

16. Technology.

I'd like to believe that we will come up with some new technology that will help us solve the problem; but that's probably a slim hope.

It already exists; it's called "contraception."

[el_bryanto]

17. What is that? Contraception? I'm not familiar with it. nt

[Skittles]

29. just in case this is not a joke

birth control

[Warpy]

32. In areas where a woman's worth is tied to the number of (male) children she has

pushing contraception doesn't work. Women given access to education or the means to start a small business suddenly drop their fertility rate near zero. That's what works. Dictating contraception to them does not.

[Straw Man]

39. Agreed.

I never suggested "dictating." Education is an excellent starting point, but economic independence for women is the key.

Looking to technology to keep producing miracles that will keep the planet one step ahead of the crushing burden of overpopulation is pointless and counterproductive. Earth's capacity to sustain human life is finite, and one day we will reach its limit. As many have said here in so many words, it won't be pretty.

[hifiguy]

18. There has to be.

Any closed system - and the Earth is a closed system - has a finite carrying capacity, whether it's matter, energy or people.

There WILL be a massive die-off, but there is no way the human species will go extinct.

I'd guess the ideal sustainable population for the planet is somewhere between 2 and 3 billion, and that's assuming clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources and agricultural practices.

You do not screw with Mother Nature, and she will have the last word.

[Warpy]

31. Most food that could go to feeding hungry people

is being fed to meat animals in the west. No matter how severe the next big famine is, that is not likely to change. Starving people can't afford to buy corn, soybeans, oats, and other nutritious foods. Ranchers can.

Cutting meat intake would seem to be a sensible idea, but that will have the net effect of cutting acreage devoted to corn, soybeans, oats, and other food crops destined for animal feed because starving people still won't be able to afford them.

Cutting meat intake is still a sensible idea, mostly from a health standpoint. Perhaps in time the world will catch a clue and start farming food for people instead of meat animals at some point. The disused arable land will come in handy then.

[daleanime]

33. +1

[Boudica the Lyoness]

35. Alfalfa?

I am a strict vegetarian and have been for well over 40 years, but - if we don't grow the crops you name, what shall we replace them with? BTW we are commercial hay producers for, if conditions are right, export.

Our exported hay goes to dairy herds. Milk, cheese and butter.

Please name the 'people' crops that you'd like to see us grow.

Also, what's this?

The disused arable land will come in handy then.

[FLPanhandle]

37. Cutting meat is a symptom of the over population problem

For eons humans ate meat and a wide variety of plant foods.

The difference now? Too many people. So, we have to start cutting back. First meat, then another other foods that are considered too resource intensive. Eventually that road leads to lots of people eating a basic gruel. Once we populate past the gruel point, it's starvation.

The only reason meat is being discussed proves there are too many people on the planet.

[Warpy]

40. Oh, I agree fully. We also know what to do about it

and that is educate and empower women across the developing world. As soon as their horizons are raised above walking incubator status, their fertility rate drops like a rock.

However, long before we get to the thin gruel stage, overpopulation will give rise to huge epidemics of all the diseases that thrive on overcrowding. Chronic malnutrition will make those diseases more serious and raise the mortality rate. Famine and pestilence go hand in hand and war or revolution aren't far behind.

[CrispyQ]

2. Hey, I have an idea!

Let's limit women's access to sex education, birth control & abortion!







Personally, I think we're fucked. There is no political will to address climate change to the degree it needs & one never dare suggest that humans control their numbers. Hell, even on this site people will bristle when you suggest that population control, because you no, know one has the right to tell others how many kids to have, even if we all go down with the ship. I don't get it, but bookmarking this thread to come back to, cuz I'm betting someone will comment to that effect.

[RKP5637]

6. Well said! Populating like rats and rabbits will lead humanity to destruction. It doesn't take a

wizard to see that finite resources can only support so much, but some just can't get that through their heads. What gets me are those proud of their huge families gobbling up resources, like WTF, are just just showing the world they know how to F or what.

[yeoman6987]

10. The Europeans and Americans are down in births

Germany doesn't even have replacement numbers and many other countries don't either. The biggest birth areas are Middle East and Africa. Due to Americas water problems, we should keep our population at 300 million and not grow that number. We will have a big resource problem if we don't sustain our numbers. It's coming fast.

[RKP5637]

11. Definitely!!! And it will occur quickly, as you say. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

26. Just wait for it....

It will come under the guise of the "Women have choice" argument. Which is crap.

And in most societies where overpopulation is a serious problem, the women really don't have choice at all. Their religions, their cultures and their men expect them to have as many children as possible and keep them as ignorant, uneducated and disempowered as possible in order to insure it.

[Skittles]

30. religion is a huge cause of this

yes indeed

[hifiguy]

36. Look at so many things wrong with the planet

and there are the Abrahamic monotheisms, pouring gas on the fire of planetary destruction.

[former9thward]

41. What is the religion in China?

[RKP5637]

3. No, and what will happen IMO is massive extinction. Some will survive, but many will perish

clawing for resources to try to survive.

[FLPanhandle]

7. +1

If any humans do survive, they will be on a devastated planet.

[hobbit709]

5. I'm waiting for the next big rock to hit.

[PatrickforO]

8. No, the earth cannot support that many, at least under the current

neoliberal capitalist system. It can't even support 7 billion under the current capitalist economy.

[RKP5637]

12. The capitalistic system as it is now will fuel fights rather than solutions, because

generally capitalism is based on win/lose, rather than win/win. Capitalism IMO encourages and rewards the baser instincts of mankind by rewarding oneupmanship, greed and hoarding. ... not conducive for the survival of people on an overcrowded planet.

[The2ndWheel]

20. It is supporting 7+ billion though

We're not all dying. We even keep adding people. Now support may be a relative word, but in the general sense of that word, there are more people today than there were yesterday.

[FLPanhandle]

21. We are "supporting" 7+ billion by overfishing the oceans and destroying the environment

Eventually, that will catch up to us (soon). We are defect spending the environment to eat and live our lifestyles.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Absolutely

That's the issue with words like support, or sustainability, etc. Why it's difficult to get people to want to change their habits. We're not all dying right now, so we're being supported, our lifestyles are being sustained, depending on how you look at it. We don't really know what isn't sustainable until it's not sustainable.

Overfishing and destroying the environment hasn't really cost us anything yet. Even when previous civilizations came and went, we're now even bigger than any of them ever were. Why change? Short term will always beat long term. You can make plans to eat a big dinner out at a fancy restaurant at the end of the month, but if you don't eat between the start and end of the month, you won't make it to your fancy dinner. That's just how life works though. You do what you have to do in the moment to get to the next moment.

I'm not sure that humanity is quite adapted to the time that civilization gives us. Not only do we have all this stuff, but we constantly have to do more stuff. We almost force ourselves to use more resources. Some people don't have enough and we have to help them, others have a lot and want to do something with what they have. We have the concept of retirement, but to get there we have to do all this stuff. Even in retirement, we want to do even more stuff, including some of the stuff we never got a chance to do before when we were doing a whole bunch of stuff.

[GreatGazoo]

13. The Planet? Yes. The planet could easily support 11 billion or more humans right now.

11 billion peeps X 2000 calories/day X 365 = 8.03 Quadrillion calories Needed

Currently produced: >16 Quadrillion calories

Suppose the world, in the not too distant future, will have a population of 10 billion people. The average number of calories needed per person varies greatly based on age, gender, height and weight, level of activity, etc. Suppose a generous estimate of 4,000 calories per person per day. This allows for a significant loss of calories from the field to the table. Data for calories produced per crop is field weight data; most crops are processed post harvest, reducing calories available for consumption significantly. Multiply 10 billion times 4 thousand times 365 days a year, and the result is exactly 1.46 x 10^16. Now consider the number of calories produced by the 44 crops listed in this chart: 1.4841E+16. That number is 104 percent of the generous estimate of the calories needed to feed 10 billion people. And those 44 crops do not include many fruit and vegetable crops, fish harvested in the wild, and various minor crops. So the total food calories produced worldwide already exceeds the amount needed to feed 10 billion persons.

Adding the calories from only the top 34 crops (neglecting those that have a value of E+12 or less) results in total calories of 1.4800E+16. Adding the calories from only the top 25 crops, results in total calories of 1.46022E+16, which again is still sufficient to feed 10 billion persons. Only the top 25 staple crops, grown at 2008 levels, are needed to provide enough calories for 10 billion persons. And yet, in a world of less than 7 billion persons, 1 billion go hungry every year. The top 25 staple crops, in order by total calories produced by that crop worldwide

http://www.gardeningplaces.com/articles/global-food-crisis.htm

But...

the bigger problems are location, distribution issues and the lack of diversity of nutrients available through our foods.

[NightWatcher]

14. Two words: Bunk Beds

[Orrex]

15. 11 billion would add so much weight to the planet that it would fall out of orbit

True fact.

[hifiguy]

19. I don't think relativistic gravity works that way.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. Thanks, Newton! nt

[TampaAnimusVortex]

22. Easily

Phase in nanotechnology, solar, 3D printers, and some fancy genetics and each household could support itself. Recycle water and waste to almost 100% efficiency.

Anyone that has driven across country knows there is so much land going unused its crazy. You could plop self-sufficient housing all over. Plenty of room and resources.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217

and

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/17/this-indoor-farm-is-100-times-more-productive-than.aspx

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. Not if it's 11 Billion Shopping at Walmart

Don't think we can support 7 Billion if each person has to have their own 96in TV, 47 changes of clothes, Smartphone, Ipod, Stereo, Personal Trans, and 100 meter square of Air-conditioned/Heated within +/- 1 degree personal space.

[KamaAina]

24. Guess we're gonna find out

[brooklynite]

27. I won't be around...best of luck to you.

That said, there's plenty of land; you have to find a way to move jobs and housing out the 3rd world cities.

[villager]

28. Who all want SUVs and hamburgers? No.

n/t

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

38. We, as in the planet, is over due for a mass extinction

Hopefully the smart humans survive.

Alas odds are at least one asshat of breed able age will survive perpetuating the asshat gene to Human 2.0