Is Negative Population Growth Bad?

[anglolawyer]

Anything (peacable) that drives down the population is good. Whenever I calculate how few people there should be, I always end up thinking 'still too many'. 5th century BC Athens had a flowering civilisation (Socrates, Plato, Pericles, the playwrites and poets, Thucydides etc) with only 100,000 citizens. Life is more complicated now and we need all kinds of experts in many fields and a large enough population to produce them. Somewhere between 10M and 100M should do it - worldwide of course. Lucky will be our descendants, a thousand years from now, living in peace and love on a sparsely populated planet, all speaking a sensibly agreed upon common language. English, say.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Anything (peacable) that drives down the population is good. Whenever I calculate how few people there should be, I always end up thinking 'still too many'. 5th century BC Athens had a flowering civilisation (Socrates, Plato, Pericles, the playwrites and poets, Thucydides etc) with only 100,000 citizens. Life is more complicated now and we need all kinds of experts in many fields and a large enough population to produce them. Somewhere between 10M and 100M should do it - worldwide of course. Lucky will be our descendants, a thousand years from now, living in peace and love on a sparsely populated planet, all speaking a sensibly agreed upon common language. English, say.

This is unrealistic. The chances that the human population decreases below 1 billion are slim. The only way to achieve such a low population is to return to the Paleolithic (a hunter-gatherer society with no agriculture). Since about the first century A.D. the global population was nearly half a billion. This ebbed and flowed over the centuries, with the greatest decrease being during the spread of the black death. After the industrial revolution, the population increased to 1 billion for the first time. As more discoveries occurred, the population continued to increase.

By nature of organizing a complex society, we can sustain millions more than we could have if there were no such society. In addition to this, human life expectancy will increase. How the increase in life expectancy will play out, in terms of population growth, is unknown. Some scientists say that within the next century life expectancy may reach 1,000 years (this may be over optimistic). A much more realistic estimate is that human life expectancy will reach 200-300 years in the next century. Assuming of course, that our modern society does not collapse and render this notion obsolete.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is unrealistic. The chances that the human population decreases below 1 billion are slim. The only way to achieve such a low population is to return to a largely hunter-gatherer society with no agriculture. Since about the first century A.D. the global population was nearly half a billion. This ebbed and flowed over the centuries, with the greatest decrease being during the spread of the black death. After the industrial revolution, the population increased to 1 billion for the first time. As more discoveries occurred, the population continued to increase.

By nature of organizing a complex society, we can sustain millions more than we could have if there were no such society. In addition to this, human life expectancy will increase. How the increase in life expectancy will play out, in terms of population growth, is unknown. Some scientists say that within the next century life expectancy may reach 1,000 years (this may be over optimistic). A much more realistic estimate is that human life expectancy will reach 200-300 years in the next century. Assuming of course, that our modern society does not collapse and render this notion obsolete.

I don't see why it unrealistic. What was the population in 500BC. Add a little of our technology (painkillers maybe) and those guys would have had it pretty good imho. Are you saying 10-100M is unsustainable? How come? Just because there were more people before?

I agree about increased life expectancy. It may get to a lot more than 2-300 hundred years, whereupon we're they're all screwed. Without a drastic fall in the population there will have to be mandatory euthanasia and birth control. We may have to restrict access to higher ages to certain groups (= the rich, most probably) leading to some kind of sci-fi horror world in which the aged and their helots are in constant struggle with those of limited life span. Great!

Another idea is miniaturisation - of people. If we could reduce folk to the size of ants they could live happily under glass domes tended by full size folk and we could go for 10,000 billion!

 

[L.Y.S.]

As for my view of the subject, I am slightly skeptical that declining population growth is a positive thing. I will admit that my ideas as to why it is bad are a bit 'out there', but I find no reason for population to decrease for a number of reasons:

One of the more rational reasons is that our frontier is expanding. Humans will live on new planets or at least begin terraforming them within a century. This will open up a tremendous amount of natural resources and living space.

Second rational idea, is that humans have the capacity to use less, and to build more sustainably. Humans can significantly reduce their footprint, if that was culturally desired.

The third less rational, extremely out there idea, is that we need some semblance of high population for human defense against potential extraterrestrial threats. Again, I concede that this is a "far out" concern, nonetheless it should be considered that there are other violent and territorial species in the universe. This assumption is grounded in the idea that the ET will have near level technical equivalence to us, or that we will have enough population and time to adapt during wartime. This is why sending out drones for intel is tremendously important. Again, it’s out there, but something to consider.

 

[Caper]

I can't see humans expanding into space for hundreds of years.

 

[Urg]

I can't see humans expanding into space for hundreds of years.

Why not?

 

[L.Y.S.]

I can't see humans expanding into space for hundreds of years.

That's a false presumption due to a lack of knowledge. Humans already have all the necessary knowhow to travel throughout the solar system. The only issue seems to be that there is no current demand to travel into space. Humans at the moment, seem, 'too down to Earth'.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I don't see why it unrealistic. What was the population in 500BC. Add a little of our technology (painkillers maybe) and those guys would have had it pretty good imho. Are you saying 10-100M is unsustainable? How come? Just because there were more people before?

Just false nostalgia that people often get when thinking of the past, those people lived brutal, short, and nearly barbaric lives. Only the rich lived in the decadence that you imagine. The average man broke his back and died at the age of 30, maybe 40 if he were lucky. Today, we have better medicine, food supply, and a longer life expectancy. Labor is less intense. People die less often than they did in the past.

Another reason that population decline is unattractive, seems to be that there must be a minimum number of people to maintain the flow of ideas and trade. How would we be able to maintain programs like NASA with such a small population? We wouldn’t.

I agree about increased life expectancy. It may get to a lot more than 2-300 hundred years, whereupon we're they're all screwed. Without a drastic fall in the population there will have to be mandatory euthanasia and birth control. We may have to restrict access to higher ages to certain groups (= the rich, most probably) leading to some kind of sci-fi horror world in which the aged and their helots are in constant struggle with those of limited life span. Great!

Above 200 – 300 in the next century is extremely optimistic. Even if it did happen it would not be fully released to the public. Your assumptions in this regard would be correct. Why would you give a person who was only predicted to have 80 years, 1’000 years? That would be overload, and no normal human would be able to handle that. Increased age must come with time and proper planning. Our culture and society must grow and evolve. Would you really want a person like Kim Kardashian or Kanye West being alive for 1,000 years? It would almost not be worth living if this happened. Our society must mature.

Another idea is miniaturisation - of people. If we could reduce folk to the size of ants they could live happily under glass domes tended by full size folk and we could go for 10,000 billion!

The first and more rational step is to remodel cities, potentially with arcology. This idea hasn’t been a popular one. Another rational step is to expand out into space. And then thirdly, when humans learn to manipulate space and time, perhaps we can miniaturize, or even create our own dimension. That would be awesome. I’d so be Q from TNG. Q was bad ass.

 

[Arcade22]

Can we not manage resources with more people?

Sure we can. It will just come at the price of sharply reduced living standard which is of course a wonderful thing compared to stopping people from pumping out more runts.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Sure we can. It will just come at the price of sharply reduced living standard which is of course a wonderful thing compared to stopping people from pumping out more runts.

This is a false paradigm. I've already explained why this is irrelevant in the replies above.

 

[GlennB]

One of the more rational reasons is that our frontier is expanding. Humans will live on new planets or at least begin terraforming them within a century. This will open up a tremendous amount of natural resources and living space.

Which planets? The only local candidate is Mars and it's not much of a candidate for a self-sustaining major population centre.

 

[anglolawyer]

Just false nostalgia that people often get when thinking of the past, those people lived brutal, short, and nearly barbaric lives. Only the rich lived in the decadence that you imagine. The average man broke his back and died at the age of 30, maybe 40 if he were lucky. Today, we have better medicine, food supply, and a longer life expectancy. Labor is less intense. People die less often than they did in the past.

Not at all, just imprecision on my part. The citizens of Athens sat atop a large population of women, children and slaves. The better off lived comfortable enough lives, but obviously lacking our advantages in medicine. I am well aware that things were not so great for everyone else but I was not talking about them. Technology has replaced the need for them.

Another reason that population decline is unattractive, seems to be that there must be a minimum number of people to maintain the flow of ideas and trade. How would we be able to maintain programs like NASA with such a small population? We wouldn’t.

Agreed. That type of thing would be tricky to sustain. But Japan has a space programme and a population only a little above 100M. Remember this optimum population would be fabulously wealthy. Maybe they would spend all day at the beach and not want to explore space.

Above 200 – 300 in the next century is extremely optimistic. Even if it did happen it would not be fully released to the public. Your assumptions in this regard would be correct. Why would you give a person who was only predicted to have 80 years, 1’000 years? That would be overload, and no normal human would be able to handle that. Increased age must come with time and proper planning. Our culture and society must grow and evolve. Would you really want a person like Kim Kardashian or Kanye West being alive for 1,000 years? It would almost not be worth living if this happened. Our society must mature.

And you know this how?

The first and more rational step is to remodel cities, potentially with arcology. This idea hasn’t been a popular one. Another rational step is to expand out into space. And then thirdly, when humans learn to manipulate space and time, perhaps we can miniaturize, or even create our own dimension. That would be awesome. I’d so be Q from TNG. Q was bad ass.

I do not want to live expanded out in space on top of millions of other people. I want space on the ground, unpolluted rives and oceans, plentiful raw materials, a varied and stable eco system sustaining abundant wildlife - all of which requires many fewer people.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Agreed. That type of thing would be tricky to sustain. But Japan has a space programme and a population only a little above 100M. Remember this optimum population would be fabulously wealthy. Maybe they would spend all day at the beach and not want to explore space.

Yeah that's the population of JAPAN. On an island the size of California. Imagine if Japan only had 1'000 residents. How would it maintain a space program then? How would they maintain enough industry and commerce to afford it? I'm sorry, but the idea that we can maintain a complex and modern society with 100M people on EARTH is bullocks. It simply won't happen. GPS, cell phone networks, satellite communication, all that stuff would disappear overnight.

Such rapid decreases in population tend to correspond to population bottlenecks and disasters. Unless this downward trend takes centuries, then it will not be a positive situation. Historically speaking, decreases in population tend to corresponded with general decreases in productivity and wealth. Humans would never be able to expand into space with such a tiny population. Though we agree that there should be fewer people.

And you know this how?

Genetic science is terribly complex. There are dozens of genes and hundreds of protein combinations that control height alone. Scientists are still having trouble with this. You really think that they'll be able to fix this any time soon? It's doubtful.

I do not want to live expanded out in space on top of millions of other people. I want space on the ground, unpolluted rives and oceans, plentiful raw materials, a varied and stable eco system sustaining abundant wildlife - all of which requires many fewer people.

It's a cute idea, but the only way to maintain a complex society and reduce pollution is to live 'on top' of others. Raw materials will still exist if we recycle and reuse materials responsibly. And wildlife can be spared destruction if we organize our cities properly. 'On the ground' is neither here nor their. I'm sure they'll put parks and zoos in open areas of future buildings. Maybe in future arcological structures they'll make people pay more for a ground view???

Fewer people are nice, but your figure of 100M is unrealistic. 1-3 billion seems to be a bit more realistic, and if mating patterns could change so that birthrate is stagnant then that would be a much more sustainable path.

 

[zeggman]

I can't see humans expanding into space for hundreds of years.

If ever.

Unless we hit the sci-fi lottery, and faster-than-light travel turns out (against all odds) to be feasible after all, we'll need to survive the billions of years between now and the transformation of our sun into a red giant to have any plausible justification for even colonizing other places in our solar system.

 

[L.Y.S.]

If ever.

Unless we hit the sci-fi lottery, and faster-than-light travel turns out (against all odds) to be feasible after all, we'll need to survive the billions of years between now and the transformation of our sun into a red giant to have any plausible justification for even colonizing other places in our solar system.

The original statement wasn't about interstellar travel. It was about interplanetary travel, which I believe I said at least a dozen of times. Interplanetary travel is extremely practical and has already happened. Humans are far more equipped for travelling to other planets now than we were in the past.

 

[zeggman]

One problem with a low birth rate is that in some areas of research can only be done by people in their 20s. If you have not made your name by the time you are 30 you never will in those areas.

This is nonsense, even for paradigm-shifting theories of physics, and most of the humanity-advancing research for the next century or so is likely to come from the fields of biology and chemistry anyway.

Even if it were true the fact remains that a low birth rate still produces plenty of people in their 20s as long as there is also a low infant/child mortality rate.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Which planets? The only local candidate is Mars and it's not much of a candidate for a self-sustaining major population centre.

Of course, Mars hasn't been terraformed.

Venus is also an excellent candidate. We have to position mirrors around the planet which can either absorb or reflect light. This will decrease the tremendous heat on the planet's surface, and allow for the planet to cool.

 

[zeggman]

I think, technologically speaking, we're more than capable of coping with a much larger population if we put our minds to it. I believe we can also do so in an ecologically sustainable way.

I think, technologically speaking, we're just as capable of thriving with a much smaller population, also in an ecologically sustainable way. One of the biggest causes of extinction in the past century has been habitat destruction, and that's directly attributable to population growth.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yeah that's the population of JAPAN. On an island the size of California. Imagine if Japan only had 1'000 residents. How would it maintain a space program then? How would they maintain enough industry and commerce to afford it? I'm sorry, but the idea that we can maintain a complex and modern society with 100M people on EARTH is bullocks. It simply won't happen. GPS, cell phone networks, satellite communication, all that stuff would disappear overnight.

NASA employs only 18,000 people, probably not all in one place. And it contracts to another 300,000. That still leaves 9.7M free to do other things (I am going for my 10M population having decided 100M is too many and I may ditch NASA and go for 1M)

Such rapid decreases in population tend to correspond to population bottlenecks and disasters. Unless this downward trend takes centuries, then it will not be a positive situation. Historically speaking, decreases in population tend to corresponded with general decreases in productivity and wealth. Humans would never be able to expand into space with such a tiny population. Though we agree that there should be fewer people.

Who said rapid? Did I say rapid? Does the OP require rapid? No. I will settle for 500 to 1,000 years.

Genetic science is terribly complex. There are dozens of genes and hundreds of protein combinations that control height alone. Scientists are still having trouble with this. You really think that they'll be able to fix this any time soon? It's doubtful.

So your answer to my question is you don't know.

It's a cute idea, but the only way to maintain a complex society and reduce pollution is to live 'on top' of others. Raw materials will still exist if we recycle and reuse materials responsibly. And wildlife can be spared destruction if we organize our cities properly. 'On the ground' is neither here nor their. I'm sure they'll put parks and zoos in open areas of future buildings. Maybe in future arcological structures they'll make people pay more for a ground view???

Fewer people are nice, but your figure of 100M is unrealistic. 1-3 billion seems to be a bit more realistic, and if mating patterns could change so that birthrate is stagnant then that would be a much more sustainable path.

'The only way'? Says who? Whatever. Tell us what an arcological structure is.

 

[zeggman]

Of course, Mars hasn't been terraformed.

Venus is also an excellent candidate. We have to position mirrors around the planet which can either absorb or reflect light. This will decrease the tremendous heat on the planet's surface, and allow for the planet to cool.

Or, ooh ooh, we could just build a bunch of new planets in the Goldilocks zone. Let's do it!