6 billion vs. 12 billion

[Phaedrus2129]

The human population on Earth has exceeded the planet's biochemical carrying capacity. This is fact. The two limiting reagents are nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates can be synthesized from air, but are usually pulled from rock; phosphates can only be pulled from rocks, and those rocks are running out. Without phosphates we can't make the fertilizer to grow enough crops to feed more than two billion people at maximum. Phosphate reserves will dry up in approximately seventy to one hundred fifty years. When they do there will be mass starvation, following by rioting, breakdown of law and order, wars, disease, and a general collapse of civilization. Population will probably fall to one billion people or so at most.


Let's postulate that by the year 2110 (100 years from now) we will run out of phosphates, with a population of thirteen billion people. We will not be able to synthesize phosphates without the phosphate-rich rocks, we will not colonize another planet, we will not reduce population peacefully. Twelve billion people will die in a span of ten years.

You are a microbiologist. You have created a strain of virus that will kill five out of six people world wide, and cannot be treated or quarantined. Your virus will reduce the world's current population (seven billion) to one billion people in the space of one year. The death is painful, but not gruesome. You can release it easily at any time.



TLDR: The choice
Do you kill six billion people now, or let twelve billion people die in the future?



I want to see what you think. There are other options, if you think on them, at least one other microbiology related. But consider the plainest case first, just to feel out your ethics.

[msiegel]

i create a strain of bacteria that harvests phosphates from wastewater and runoff

[Fwiffo]

You don't use it. Given a 100 year time span, it's somewhere between quite possible and fairly likely that another solution will present itself.

[mr_a500]

How odd... I was already considering making a poll about what people think the ideal population of the Earth would be, using various figures from 12 billion down to a single person.

(my personal choice would have been option #9: "101 people - me and 100 beautiful females, specifically chosen by me"... sorry guys, but your deaths would be in a good cause :wink:)

[Rajagra]

Population grows or shrinks to match resources. It's foolish to try and interfere. Just let things run their course.

Edit> Loosely relevant...


I need to stay away from "random comic" buttons.

[msiegel]

i'm just buying time; we still have a serious overpopulation problem.

given more lead time, how about better education for women and incentives to have 1-child families.

we'll have to invest heavily in medical technology, since there won't be as many "kids" to pay the aging population's health bills... but why isn't this all do-able within the 100 year time-frame.

to a billion, and below!

[wellington1869]

to answer your question, you let 12 billion die later. Its okay if "nature" kills people.

yea, we're so ****ed.

anyway, by then we'll all be chinese muslims. think about it.

[msiegel]

i don't feel any more chinese...

anyway, enabling a monoculture is definitely asking for trouble

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

[Voixdelion]

Your question assumes that we are certain that the world  government hasn't already put a plan into action to cull the population?

[Fwiffo]

Technology seems to lead developed countries to move toward negative population growth eventually (Japan and some parts of Europe have negative population growth right now, for instance). Gradually, as large families are no longer particularly useful, people trend toward choosing smaller family sizes.

Anyhow, conflicts over energy are going to kill us faster than conflicts over food.

[msiegel]

we *could* start a pool on what will kill us sooner

[quadibloc]

The human population on Earth has exceeded the planet's biochemical carrying capacity. This is fact. The two limiting reagents are nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates can be synthesized from air, but are usually pulled from rock; phosphates can only be pulled from rocks, and those rocks are running out.

Phosphorus does not have a half-life. Hence, if there is enough phosphorus for a human population of thirteen billion people to exist, it will always be possible for thirteen billion people to exist. We will just have to start being very efficient in recycling the phosphorus from anything that dies at the point at which we "run out".

I presume, though, that part of your scenario involves the fact that plants are not necessarily terribly efficient at absorbing phosphorus from soil, so we have to apply more phosphorus to the soil than the plants deliver to that which eats them. Even so, the excess doesn't disappear.

In any case, releasing a virus to kill billions of people is not necessary. Nothing prevents the six billion people of the world from using birth control, so that the world's population will not grow in a problematic manner. If they fail to do that, they will be responsible for the deaths of twelve billion people. If I release the virus, I will be responsible for the deaths of five billion people.

Of course, it is true that the human race has shown little sign of controlling the increase in its numbers. But, generally speaking, since no one can be absolutely certain what the future will hold, assuming that releasing a plague to kill off most of the human race is necessarily the most humane thing to do... is the kind of action one usually associates with people who don't really care about the well-being of others, who enjoy causing death and suffering, and who are egotistical and vain, certain that they know what is better for the human race than anyone else does.

Those who are generally admired as moral individuals are those who are gentle and who refrain from hurting others, even when it is justified, even when there is provocation. I think this is a sound instinct.

I do agree that squeamishness should not prevent us from doing what is necessary to achieve the best outcome. But while squeamishness should be avoided, humility and caution are not to be avoided: they are to be embraced.

So I find the kind of "shocking" moral scenario as this... not to really be very useful in shaping our thoughts in a way that is useful as a guide to action.

[wellington1869]

the underlying problem is that the human species is basically suicidal, either because our species is inherently flawed, or because short term interests keep winning out over long terms ones (ie, our species is inherently flawed). Humans are like a cancer on the earth, eating everything in sight and turning them into either poo or carbon. Its what we do. We're the plague on earth.

[msiegel]

yes, but it won't be long before the internet becomes sentient and starts telling us what to do

[kriminal]

How odd... I was already considering making a poll about what people think the ideal population of the Earth would be, using various figures from 12 billion down to a single person.

(my personal choice would have been option #9: "101 people - me and 100 beautiful females, specifically chosen by me"... sorry guys, but your deaths would be in a good cause :wink:)

^^ i agree with this, however this excludes you

[wellington1869]

i've thought about this a lot. See, we're basically animals for whom, through a freak of evolution, the hold of raw instinct was lessened (giving us free choice). But the problem is, as animals, we were never meant to be given free choice. Its an evolutionary mistake.

So we fill our time trying to find an "instinct substitute" to 'tell us what to do', some of us turn to religion or law, others embrace anarchism and nihilism, others embrace endless escapism to avoid the void-that-is-"the question" at the center of our experience, "whats it all for?" and etc, and others spend their life 'seeking answers' to a question that was never meant to be asked of animals, which we are.

There is an answer of course, but its un-exciting. Which is coexist and make the best of it while the ride lasts, cuz thats all there is. But thats no fun. Escapism on the other hand - extreme hate or extreme love - feels like instinct - it temporarily fills the void, and makes us animals once again.

People always think humans seek to escape their animal nature, but I disagree. What humans do most intently is seek to recapture their animal nature. We miss it, and we curse and damn the day evolution took it away from us.

[kriminal]

then when the people die they will come back undead....... dun dun dun! umbrella corp has won
>

[msiegel]

sticking to speculation, i think we may end up well-loved and well-cared-for pets of something far more intelligent. then we can indulge our animal natures... in moderation.  no peeing on the carpet!

[Phaedrus2129]

Phosphorus does not have a half-life. Hence, if there is enough phosphorus for a human population of thirteen billion people to exist, it will always be possible for thirteen billion people to exist. We will just have to start being very efficient in recycling the phosphorus from anything that dies at the point at which we "run out".

I presume, though, that part of your scenario involves the fact that plants are not necessarily terribly efficient at absorbing phosphorus from soil, so we have to apply more phosphorus to the soil than the plants deliver to that which eats them. Even so, the excess doesn't disappear.

Phosphates always reach the sea eventually, where they dissolve to a concentration of about seventy parts per billion. Completely unrecoverable. It's trapped in seafloor sediment, subducted under a continent, brought back to the surface in volcanic rocks (or in subsurface igneous structures), weathers out into the soil or is mined, cycle begins again.

The cycle takes tens of millions of years.

[J888www]

We are a parasitic infestation on Gaia,
When she wakes from her slumber,
We will all know fear,
She but stir in her sleep
And thus Indochina weep.

[wellington1869]

sticking to speculation, i think we may end up well-loved and well-cared-for pets of something far more intelligent. then we can indulge our animal natures... in moderation.  no peeing on the carpet!

lol, like in planet of the apes

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[msiegel]

lol, like in planet of the apes

:lol:

yes you finally made a monkeeey out of meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
XD

[wellington1869]

:lol:

yes you finally made a monkeeey out of meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
XD

hahahaha thats one of my fav simpsons musicals too

oh my god, i was wrong
it was earth, all along

hahahahaha

[d4rkst4r]

Easy - you create a materialistic society and bubble economy. Basically, put women to work full time and reduce the birth rate.

The majority of households need two incomes to afford their iPhones, 52" TVs, $100+ cable subsriptions, and monstrous SUVs & pick-up trucks.

The frequent economic bubbles ensure the majority keeps getting deeper and deeper in debt.

The birth rate will go down to 1.6 or so and the population will start to decline. It needs to be the proverbial 2.2 or higher to keep the population stable or growing. Alternatively, the population could use an influx of less materialistic people from another society with a birth rate of say 2.6 to replenish the dwindling original population.

Welcome to America!

[wellington1869]

Alternatively, the population could use an influx of less materialistic people from another society

like who? name them

[Sam]

How odd... I was already considering making a poll about what people think the ideal population of the Earth would be, using various figures from 12 billion down to a single person.

(my personal choice would have been option #9: "101 people - me and 100 beautiful females, specifically chosen by me"... sorry guys, but your deaths would be in a good cause :wink:)

Then you could have all the world's keyboards to yourself!  Only problem is that you'd have 100 women nagging on you that you have too many keyboards.

[msiegel]

just think of it... 12 billion rubber dome keyboards

[d4rkst4r]

like who? name them

Well, immigrants from all countries in aggregate. You could probably name any of them. Immigrants in general have a much higher birth rate than the general population.

Have you ever considered that one benefit to our open southern border is that it prevents our population from shrinking? I think our government is motivated to maintain liberal immigration policies to keep the population (tax base) on the rise. Especially with the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Must keep social security solvent.

[wellington1869]

Well, immigrants from all countries in aggregate. You could probably name any of them. Immigrants in general have a much higher birth rate than the general population.

yes but are you saying they're "less materialistic"?

Have you ever considered that one benefit to our open southern border is that it prevents our population from shrinking? I think our government is motivated to maintain liberal immigration policies to keep the population (tax base) on the rise.

but that assumes legal immigration... i doubt illegals pay taxes each april

[hoggy]

If I answered with 6 billion - would that make me a psychopath?

[chimera15]

The human population on Earth has exceeded the planet's biochemical carrying capacity. This is fact. The two limiting reagents are nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates can be synthesized from air, but are usually pulled from rock; phosphates can only be pulled from rocks, and those rocks are running out. Without phosphates we can't make the fertilizer to grow enough crops to feed more than two billion people at maximum. Phosphate reserves will dry up in approximately seventy to one hundred fifty years. When they do there will be mass starvation, following by rioting, breakdown of law and order, wars, disease, and a general collapse of civilization. Population will probably fall to one billion people or so at most.


Let's postulate that by the year 2110 (100 years from now) we will run out of phosphates, with a population of thirteen billion people. We will not be able to synthesize phosphates without the phosphate-rich rocks, we will not colonize another planet, we will not reduce population peacefully. Twelve billion people will die in a span of ten years.

You are a microbiologist. You have created a strain of virus that will kill five out of six people world wide, and cannot be treated or quarantined. Your virus will reduce the world's current population (seven billion) to one billion people in the space of one year. The death is painful, but not gruesome. You can release it easily at any time.



TLDR: The choice
Do you kill six billion people now, or let twelve billion people die in the future?



I want to see what you think. There are other options, if you think on them, at least one other microbiology related. But consider the plainest case first, just to feel out your ethics.

The Japanese, or me if I get enough money will create a robot woman that will replace females, so no man will want to have sex with real women anymore, which will cut the human population to a percentage of its current level.  So all this population is out of control stuff is nonsense.   You can see the dream already occurring in Japan, and is shown in the giant declining birthrate.




Women will be forced to clone themselves if they want offspring.

[zefrer]

Humans are like a disease. We migrate to a place, procreate like rabbits, infest it, strip it clean of its resources until it is dead and then move on to the next place.

Agent smith was right:
"You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area."

[chimera15]

Humans are like a disease. We migrate to a place, procreate like rabbits, infest it, strip it clean of its resources until it is dead and then move on to the next place.

Agent smith was right:
"You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area."

He was wrong though that all other lifeforms/animals establish a symbiosis with the environment.   Almost every other life form procreates until it can't be sustained anymore, then dies off.

[zefrer]

That's not true actually. Nature always establishes an equilibrium, we can see this where this has changed things by animals migrating to areas where there are no natural predators for them which shifts the balance that area used to have. That species becomes dominant without a natural predator to keep their numbers reasonable which in turns makes their food sparse due to greater consumption. Once food is gone they starve to death.

_All_ known exctintions have been either due to enviromental changes (temperature etc) or human intervention. There are no known exctinctions that occured due to overpopulation of a non-human animal. Provide a reference if you think otherwise.

[chimera15]

That's not true actually. Nature always establishes an equilibrium, we can see this where this has changed things by animals migrating to areas where there are no natural predators for them which shifts the balance that area used to have. That species becomes dominant without a natural predator to keep their numbers reasonable which in turns makes their food sparse due to greater consumption. Once food is gone they starve to death.

_All_ known extinctions have been either due to environmental changes (temperature etc) or human intervention. There are no known extinctions that occured due to overpopulation of a non-human animal. Provide a reference if you think otherwise.

It's Malthus theory.  All populations of animals grow logarithmically, while sustainable resources grow at most arithmetically.  That growth is affected by positive and negative factors.

This is certainly the case where animals have been relocated where there are no predators, but it's also the case of innate creatures as well.  This is only because positive factors are negated.  Certainly things like locusts and crab populations have gone crazy continuously from early recorded history with or without human influence.

You could also look at buffalo populations before human interference.  It's difficult to argue about populations like this before human interference because obviously that would be prehistorical, and difficult to say one way or the other.

[mr_a500]

Then you could have all the world's keyboards to yourself!  Only problem is that you'd have 100 women nagging on you that you have too many keyboards.

Yes... yes, I've considered that. What you have to do is - keep the women apart so that they don't agree with each other (possibly forming a union, with outrageous demands - like refusal of sex), and then you say, "Well if you don't like my keyboards, you can always go lesbo."

(Warning: I'd advise you not to use the above comment unless you are the last man on earth.)

[ch_123]

This is one of those threads...

[wellington1869]

He was wrong though that all other lifeforms/animals establish a symbiosis with the environment.   Almost every other life form procreates until it can't be sustained anymore, then dies off.

this is true but unfortunately humans are clever enough to keep avoiding natural deaths which would keep our numbers down in a natural way (the way animal's numbers are kept down, whcih is what their symbiosis is). So in a sense when our 12 billion die off, that is our symbiosis level - except its been artificially magnified into an extra-large catastrophe (to ourselves and the earth) by our intelligent nature which is well beyond what animals are capable of.

So while i agree that in that sense we're no different from animals (ie, both of us consume until we die), but  its a question of degree, and the degree to which humans do it, due to our intellegent nature, is far greater than the destruction any other animal is capable of -- tho at the end of the day, thus, we will have used our human intelligence to be the most dangerous and most predatory animal on earth, rather than having used it to be 'human' or rational and exhibit any rational self control.

[Ekaros]

Also we have to consider that we look at population in too small scale, 100 years is generaly nothing in nature. There is some mass starvations, but major things just doesn't happen that quickly... Humans too will likely reach equilibrium in next couple thousand years. I think population was very stable untill few thousands of years ago and even then it didn't raise too much. 6B is just one figure, we might end up in 1-3B range in long run.

I just say let people starve to death and kill old people off...

[wellington1869]

The Japanese, or me if I get enough money will create a robot woman that will replace females, so no man will want to have sex with real women anymore, which will cut the human population to a percentage of its current level.  So all this population is out of control stuff is nonsense.   You can see the dream already occurring in Japan, and is shown in the giant declining birthrate.


 Women will be forced to clone themselves if they want offspring.

woody allen has already shown us the coming future. Just use the orgasmatron!

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[quadibloc]

but that assumes legal immigration... i doubt illegals pay taxes each april

They don't get tax refunds each April. So if they have jobs that they got with fake SSNs, they would be paying withholding taxes.

However, that, of course, doesn't mean they don't harm the economy, because they're still taking jobs away from the people who are already here.

Also, I Googled up some information about the real-world phosphate situation, for those who might be interested:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/wealth-of-nations/2009/12/02/dwindling-phosphate-supply-affects-food-crisis.html
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2010/10/Pages/Peak-Phosphate-Spells-End-of-Cheap-Food.aspx
http://www.baysoundings.com/sum05/phosphate23.html

[Voixdelion]

Women will be forced to clone themselves if they want offspring.

Ha! Never happen..  Boys are stupid and men are easy...Even if there were only one male left on the planet he would still be trying to mount every female on left with him.

[msiegel]

the hell u say.

dudes! u'r not all gonna let that remark just go by, are u?

/male

[mr_a500]

You are a microbiologist. You have created a strain of virus that will kill five out of six people world wide, and cannot be treated or quarantined. Your virus will reduce the world's current population (seven billion) to one billion people in the space of one year. The death is painful, but not gruesome. You can release it easily at any time.

If you're planning on releasing a virus with implications so huge, you better make damn sure it's going to do what you want - and not mutate into something uncontrollable. I'd also spend time making sure it's very fast acting and not painful.

Instead of just randomly killing people, I'd want to make sure the virus kills people with certain traits - like lack of empathy, low intelligence, and/or insane desire for power. (should wipe out most politicians, lawyers, executive sales managers and similar psychopaths :wink:)

I think one billion or less is the ideal human population of the Earth. With today's technology, though, you still need to make sure that the remaining one billion is composed of people who aren't stupid or selfish enough to continue to rape the planet for personal gain.

[mr_a500]

The problem is that with any reasonable reduction of population, the economy will collapse. The whole economy is based on growth. The only way to change things is to radically change the way the economy works - and there's no way that's ever going to happen unless some catastrophic collapse forces a radical change.

We're heading for disaster either way. I just hope I'm dead before the **** hits the fan.

[microsoft windows]

Mmm...a thread like this would be perfect for OCN!

[Rajagra]

the hell u say.

dudes! u'r not all gonna let that remark just go by, are u?

/male

I was trying to conserve energy for when that day comes.

[wellington1869]

We're heading for disaster either way. I just hope I'm dead before the **** hits the fan.

I keep saying human civilization peaked in 1985. Its all downhill from here and I'm glad I lived thru the peak and wont be around for the bottom.

[chimera15]

Ha! Never happen..  Boys are stupid and men are easy...Even if there were only one male left on the planet he would still be trying to mount every female on left with him.

Nope, you're wrong.  I only have interest in robots, 2d, and artificial girls.  Real women are too disgusting, carry diseases, bleed, get fat, age, die, decay, and you have to put up with all their emotional problems as well.  They make you do stuff too, which is the worst of all.  As a mate, they're a completely flawed design.  I could do better.  Just no reason to be interested in real women.

[msiegel]

^