Stephen Hawking warning that our extinction is on the horizon

[AlephZero]

Traditional medicine also greatly relies on forest resources, for example in the treatment of malaria. Most of the hundreds of millions of cases of malaria each year are in sub‐Saharan Africa, where it is the second highest cause of death from infectious disease. Poor communities have limited access to modern drugs, with the majority relying on traditional medicine in treating malaria. The World Agroforestry Centre recently published a guide entitled ‘Common Antimalarial Trees and Shrubs of East Africa’, which describes 22 species of trees and shrubs that are used as antimalarial treatments in East Africa by traditional medical practitioners and rural communities. “These species have great potential for further study and development as readily available alternative treatments for the curse of malaria,” said Najma Dharani, the main author of the book.

(No idea whose post that originally came from).

That's a nice argument for getting a research grant to study traditional medicine, but a poor way to attack malaria.

Providing mosquito nets in the short term, and draining swamps in the long term, is 100% effective, but unfortunately for research scientists, it doesn't require any more research.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(No idea whose post that originally came from).

That's a nice argument for getting a research grant to study traditional medicine, but a poor way to attack malaria.

I'll take your word for it. My only point in quoting that was to show the link in question is not about cutting down rainforest to make room for people to live on. The "human benefit" alluded to is primarily medicinal, not a matter of making more living space.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I'm trying to keep a low profile as I seem to get banned from the site for a week on every third post.

I'm sorry but this comment is just brilliant. I laughed so hard lol, thank you good sir.

 

[Mentalist]

Mental, I'm not talking about if there is hypothetically enough land mass to keep x number of humans alive, go back and read what I said.

True. Scroll down for short version, or read the rest of the post.

mental then tried to make a case that overpopulation wouldn't be a problem because the Earth has a lot of land.

My first post does take into account land and resources.

The Ethiopian case offers a case analysis to what you are claiming that there seems to be problems that exist before a population can grow. Sure, but while you didn't necessarily miss the point of my post entirely, however, you disregarded what I was trying to say.

My original posts intent was to show that there isn't an overpopulation problem. The U.N. paper specifically states that even though the population is growing it will soon plateau off towards 10B.

But, OF COURSE, we have to be able to deal with problems that currently exist. However, those problems will exist even if the population were held at 7B. Pollutants in water by corporations, droughts, lack of capitalization on resources as in your Ethiopian case. But making strides in these areas, like the rest of the world is, and Africa in general (Ethiopia is below the standard of African agriculture as stated within your paper), larger populations are sustainable.

Like I said in my 3rd post, problems do exist that need to be addressed, but population growth isn't one of those problems. You believe that we ought to address the problems before a population can grow, my point is, population is a non-issue and will grow regardless of what you think because this is the reality of life, so let's just tackle the problems to sustain the population of humans.

To frame the question as to what population of humans the Earth can sustain is completely missing the point. It is about a quality of life, as Evo points out

Your comfort level is irrelevant. I am talking about sustainability. I disregarded that as I didn't care for it and felt it irrelevant to my post.

Real world politics, civil wars, sanctions, economic interests, religious beliefs, etc. will prevent the world from ever coming close to the ideal models. You can say it's the fault of this group of people or that group of people that we don't reach some optimal model, but it's almost inevitable that something will prevent the optimal model from being reached.

This will happen regardless of population size. But the models in my post merely point to humans having sex, thus having babies. Religions, economic interests, are irrelevant to this reality.

Sure, given that these sorts of organizations exist and have a hand in the dealings of the world as Evo points will ultimately influence how we go about dealing with the problems we currently face, a larger population will have more difficulties. I understand that. However, like my post clearly outlines in the first and foremost post, I don't care for that, I am purely talking about the notion that overpopulation is a problem. This is not a problem, the problems are what you listed organizations, etc..., and these will continue to be problems regardless of population size if they aren't dealt with.

Overpopulation = no problem

Problem = All of what you said and Evo said (population-based posts not-with-standing).

The population will keep growing, we've achieved escape velocity in terms of that. Deal with the actual problem and not the knuckles like I said in the 3rd post.

Obviously the church has issues, but that doesn't detract from the truth of what Evo said. No matter how much you think the organization lacks credibility, it still possesses a large amount of power, and can use that power and influence to halt progress, should it so choose.

Sure, my original post cares not for this. This is irrelevant. These problems exist despite any population size. Taking a brief stroll down memory lane (i.e., history) will show you as such. These are problems that must be dealt with, population size? You try to "deal" with that, you automatically are on a losing end and completely miss the point of what actually needs to be dealt with.

Humans will have sex. You can, "get out the word" on the street corners and yell about, "WE NEED TO CONTROL THE POPULATION" but the chances of it working are slim. Even so, it is quite inane to do it in the first world though as people in the West and some Asian countries see a decline in fertility rates, so you'd ultimately have to venture out to the developing world spouting such rhetoric. To which I say, "good luck! You won't accomplish anything and the problems will still exist."

In other words,

Fighting population = losing battle.
Fighting problems = a feasible winning battle.

Given that, population isn't much a problem that needs to be addressed.

Short Version:

We all agree that these problems need to be addressed. But pouring resources to quell the population size is not a good plan in my opinion, and it will divert attention away from the problems that do exist. You cannot fight two ends of a battle with the same amount of concentration and energy, one of the battles will ultimately take more strength.

Thus, to say that the population needs to remain stagnant or be reduced means that you would have to divert attention towards that end (to keep it stagnant or reduced), and that ultimately won't deal with the actual problems that exist, or will minimize the concentration and energy towards the problems that do exist, i.e. corporation pollution, religious influence, etc...

I think we can agree now to some extent.

 

[Evo]

I think we can agree now to some extent.

No, population control is a necessity as agreed upon by over 1,700 scientists and specialists in this area.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll take the word of people that know what they're talking about.

 

[chiro]

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable. It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing.

It's about quality of life, jobs, healthcare, availability of food and water, and environmental impact.

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/sustainable-economics/pop/royal-society_92.html

A good example for you to study would be Ethiopia. They have a vast amount of arable land, yet the people suffer from hunger, lack of safe water, lack of sanitation, etc...

http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf%20files/SG_paper_3.pdf

The resource allocation that goes on today (think "waste" as opposed to allocation) is absolutely ridiculous.

Lots of resources are squandered when they don't have to be and our economic models all over the planet reward this kind of behaviour through the generation of profit.

I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, but unfortunately the incentives are geared to waste resources instead of using them wisely.

It is not good business to create something that is built to last and only needs to be purchased once.

If you want a real good look at waste you should look at how much the private defence companies have wasted in the Iraq war (namely: Halliburton) because this kind of activity is the norm in many areas.

As long as economic models thrive on creating waste and excess, you will never even get close to a proper solution for resource sustainability no matter what kind or class of resource you are talking about.

The economic models are really a misnomer: there is nothing "economic" about them (the meaning is completely inverted and diluted).

 

[chiro]

With regards to over population, I'd like to see these people talk about real effective resource allocation that benefits everyone equally before I hear them decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

It really comes down to one thing: one group wants too much of the pie and you'll always hear that someone else is to blame for all the problems and never one's own actions.

We all support companies that abuse resource allocation, and they continue to do what they need to do for their share-holders and their own pockets.

One of the hardest things for us to do will be to sit down and say "I think SHTF so we need a way to allocate resources in a way that is the least wasteful and the most economic".

To do this you would have to change nearly every single system on our entire planet including our banking system, economic system, trade and business systems, legal system and the systems of governance that have a direct link to the system of resources.

Doing this requires either a revolution of the highest order, or real co-operation between everyone for everyone's benefit.

There are some out there that have too much to lose with such a massive change and they will do whatever they can to keep themselves and their lifestyle in tact.

How do you think Walmart or China would react if they had to follow resource allocation laws that didn't make them create as much useless crap as they do now?

It would be more observational purposes very interesting to see (for scientific purposes), the reactions from the PR firms, lobbying groups, CEO mouthpieces, government mouthpieces, and all the other slick suited sharks when a real resource allocation project was discussed that ultimately hit their bottom line.

For me it would be a good laugh at least (almost like hearing a addict that they are going to quit tomorrow).

 

[DiracPool]

The resource allocation that goes on today (think "waste" as opposed to allocation) is absolutely ridiculous.

Lots of resources are squandered when they don't have to be and our economic models all over the planet reward this kind of behaviour through the generation of profit.

I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, but unfortunately the incentives are geared to waste resources instead of using them wisely.

It is not good business to create something that is built to last and only needs to be purchased once.

If you want a real good look at waste you should look at how much the private defence companies have wasted in the Iraq war (namely: Halliburton) because this kind of activity is the norm in many areas.

As long as economic models thrive on creating waste and excess, you will never even get close to a proper solution for resource sustainability no matter what kind or class of resource you are talking about.

The economic models are really a misnomer: there is nothing "economic" about them (the meaning is completely inverted and diluted).

Here here! This is more of a conservation issue not directly related to overpopulation per se, but it highlights how bad management can get amplified severely if you increase the number of bad managers. I'm afraid the goose that is laying the golden eggs on planet Earth needs to watch her back...

 

[mheslep]

No, population control is a necessity as agreed upon by over 1,700 scientists and specialists in this area.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll take the word of people that know what they're talking about.

The summary you provided earlier of a statement by a group of scientists not call for population control, it called for population stability. Global population is stabilizing.

 

[Evo]

The summary you provided earlier of a statement by a group of scientists not call for population control, it called for population stability. Global population is stabilizing.

Call it what you want but the population is increasing. Another 3 billion is not stabilizing when we can't sufficiently cope with the numbers now.

It's this burying heads in the sand and refusing to be unpopular and call it what it is. Ten billion, oh that's great! Uhm, no. Don't tell me that because we may have the ability to get everyone a daily bowl of rice that overpopulation isn't a concern.

Overpopulation isn't about food. It's about sustaining quality of life, making life worth living.

How many PF members can't find jobs? Can't get into college, can't get into Phd programs? May never be able to own a decent house or car. Over population, or if you don't like that term "Carrying capacity".

Most of the world's 5.5 billion people are becoming poorer as they compete against each other for jobs. Most lose purchasing power on a yearly basis. Increasing numbers drop out of the consumer market altogether, exerting no effective demand. Thus; it was a fact that December, 1990, oat and wheat prices sank to their lowest levels since 1972 while more people than before starved or lived on the edge of famine. The multitudes do not bid up prices. Quality of life and environmental health, not commodity prices, are clues that the carrying capacity is being exceeded.

POPULATION SIZE AND THE STANDARD OF LIVING

Now for the bad news. Depletion of soil, water, and fuel at a much faster rate than any of these can be replenished suggests that the carrying capacity of the United States already has been exceeded. David and Marcia Pimentel (1991) of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, take these three factors into account to estimate that, at a standard of living only slightly lower than is enjoyed today, the sustainable population size for the United States is less than half its present number. Beyond this, we abuse the carrying capacity and should expect sudden shocks that will massively drive down the standard of living.

http://www.jayhanson.us/page58.htm

I have seen in my own lifetime how the ability for someone to earn a living, get an education, have hopes even of bettering their position in life have become dreams. And through no fault of their own. There are simply too many people competing for those things now. Doing well in school and the willingness to work hard no longer guarantee you anything.

So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

 

[OmCheeto]

I do believe that we have gone off topic.

Whatever happened to Stephen Hawking?

 

[chiro]

Here here! This is more of a conservation issue not directly related to overpopulation per se, but it highlights how bad management can get amplified severely if you increase the number of bad managers. I'm afraid the goose that is laying the golden eggs on planet Earth needs to watch her back...

One of the main claims of overpopulation and eugenics movements is that overpopulation causes pressure on resources and as a result, population reduction measures are needed.

The situation is that the economic framework of the world is geared to waste resources because it is profitable to do so.

There is no incentive to create only what is required: you would go out of business.

You have to understand that the whole system from the credit creation all the way to the final market place has been engineered to rape resources and benefit a few.

If you told all producers at all levels (raw materials, manufacturing, etc) that they had production cap requirements and had to produce things that were superior quality, then it would mean that to maintain existing profit margins, they would have to charge a bucket-load or lose profits.

The above situation would mean that Walmart wouldn't exist and the Chinese Model would be illegal. It would mean that Halliburton would be prosecuted and that people wouldn't have to put up with cheap crap that breaks the minute you get it in the house. It would be socially responsible, save resources, but ultimately stop a select few from having skewed inequities.

If you brought this issue up with a corporation in a debate, the response would be something like "we create jobs and grow the economy: are you against jobs and economic growth?". The whole point though is that the economic model is the problem.

The economic activity is just little 1's and 0's going over communication lines that is designed to transfer wealth from one section to another and to eventually give resources to people that already have too much to know what to do with. Its almost like a high score to a computer game addict where people are willing to do anything to get their high score up for power, bragging rights, and everything else.

Personally I'd love to hear these PR shills and lobbying groups argue their case for the current economic system (and its been done quite a bit) from the benefits of capitalism (you know the whole spiel: someone gets rich, they employ people and create jobs and suddenly everybody is doing well and everyone can spend money blah blah blah) and how somehow the only alternative is some pure Marxist state (i.e. complete central planning).

Its also not like there aren't such measures: for example the fisheries industry is meant to give out licenses so that you can only catch so much fish so that they repopulate (not sure about Japan though), so it's not like what I am saying is pure theory across the board.

The problem is that it's not completely across the board and if production limits are capped, it's usually not to preserve resources but rather for "economic" means (to drive prices higher, or maybe for some entity to cripple a competitor or foreign government).

To give you an idea of how crazy things are: you have places like China building new structures and then demolishing them for the effect on GDP. This is just absolutely crazy.

You also governments around the world blow money because they don't value it. Unlike the majority of people who have to spend their time to obtain it, governments just get it through a monopoly on force.

People that don't value something will always waste it and governments are no exception.

There are a million other examples but I think the point has been made.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
making life worth living.
...
So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

Bingo!

 

[DiracPool]

So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

I think that may be the issue right there. A balance between Evo's point and Chiro's point. We actually just may, in fact, be able to support 10 billion people on this planet, if everyone was acting responsibly. You know, like everyone was recycling properly, and, as Chiro said, we make things to last and NOT to decay at the 3 year limit so we have to buy the next model. Hell, we wouldn't even need people to act responsibly on their own accord; if governments instituted sane conversation policies we could deal with the outliers. People could get together and build the "windmills" of sustainable energy and a caring concern for the biosphere, and then perhaps we could accommodate 20 billion people. I don't know.

However, this isn't the case. With the arrogance and selfishness of governments and human peoples in general these days I think we should keep the population as low as possible until we figure this out.

 

[Evo]

Ok, so back to Hawking sending people off into space. Sorry for the sidetrack.

No more side discussions. Only about Hawking's proposal. All side posts will be deleted.

 

[OmCheeto]

Perhaps, that Trekian author, tainted our thoughts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdsbuJfMpr0​

Isn't our birthday coming up?

 

[DiracPool]

Ok, so back to Hawking sending people off into space. Sorry for the sidetrack.

No more side discussions. Only about Hawking's proposal.

Sorry Evo, I got my last post in at the same second you called for a return to OP concerns. I think Hawking is absolutely right, talk about an "all eggs in one basket" absurdity. Of course we need to spread out. I think though, that it will take the form of our robotic creations rather than us humans per se, with the exception of perhaps underground communities on Venus and Mars, but I don't want to elaborate on that any more for fear of a "crackpottery" infraction (unless I get the go ahead).

 

[Evo]

Sorry Evo, I got my last post in at the same second you called for a return to OP concerns. I think Hawking is absolutely right, talk about an "all eggs in one basket" absurdity. Of course we need to spread out. I think though, that it will take the form of our robotic creations rather than us humans per se, with the exception of perhaps underground communities on Venus and Mars, but I don't want to elaborate on that any more for fear of a "crackpottery" infraction (unless I get the go ahead).

You're fine, I started that post before you posted.

My problem with hawking's idea, even though he sets it one thousand years from now so it can avoid too much specific criticism, is that i don't think we have a planet suitable to jettison humans off to within that time period.

Let's pretend that we could use Mars. Water. Where is the water going to come from? We surely can't afford to send water. And it wouldn't stay there anyway.

January 31, 2001 -- If it were possible to magically transport a cup of water from Earth to the surface of Mars, the liquid would instantly vaporize. Mars's atmosphere is so vacuous (it's less than 1% as dense as Earth's) that liquid water simply can't exist for very long on the Red Planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/

Atmosphere. Mar's core has shut down, so there is no magnetic field to protect the planet and maintain it's atmosphere.

Mars has no active dynamo action at present,

The magnetic field may thus have decayed rather quickly from its typical strength within a few thousand years after the heat flux through the core-mantle boundary became too low to support dynamo action.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920113000356

This reminds me of an old joke. Scientists realized that the Earth was no longer going to be able to sustain it's growing population, so they decided to build spaceships to save people by sending them off the planet. It was decided that the first ships should carry those of lesser abilities first, only fair they should be the first to be saved.

The day came, the rockets blasted off.

The scientists chuckled and went back to their regular lives.

Ok, that's not verbatim, but I can't find the original, close enough.

 

[DiracPool]

Let's pretend that we could use Mars. Water. Where is the water going to come from? We surely can't afford to send water. And it wouldn't stay there anyway.

That's precisely why I said underground communities in my previous post. Terraforming is going to be an enormous industrial effort that will take umpteenth years to accomplish if it even can be accomplished at all. However, we have already made water from moon-like regolith and that's encouraging as a prospect to do the same on the other 3 rocky planets closest to us our sun. See this link:



Soo, as far as humans creating more baskets for their eggs, underground communities on our sister planets may satisfy Hawking's concerns in the short run. Of course, again, the limiting factor is how to create the energy in these underground communities to forge this electrolosis. But that is why we study physics, right? That's our challenge.

 

[Andre]

Trying frantically to stay on topic but mind this. The average sociological, psychological condition of mankind is very well adapted for tribe survival on the paleo-earth of the Pleistocene, but not for a complex society like we have now. So how are we going to reform/evolve our species that we can cooperate to make the impossible happen?

For instance when NotLouisAmstrong talked about "one small step for a man but a giant leap ..etc..", who didn't think that Mars was a breeze, maybe another decennium or two?

But we're still fighting wars and we have no time and money to spend for such an ambitious project

 

[mheslep]

Trying frantically to stay on topic but mind this. The average sociological, psychological condition of mankind is very well adapted for tribe survival on the paleo-earth of the Pleistocene, but not for a complex society like we have now.

Yet the Pleistocene ended some 11,000 years / 500 generations ago and we're still here.

So how are we going to reform/evolve our species that we can cooperate to make the impossible happen?

Others have engaged this line before, rejecting the notion that the myriad interactions of modern society are wholly unnatural.

...
This book argues that our civilisation depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, ... To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection - the comparative increase of population and wealth - of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be `fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it' ( Genesis 1:28). This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.

...

One can hardly expect people either to like an extended order that runs counter to some of their strongest instincts, or readily to understand that it brings them the material comforts they also want. The order is even `unnatural' in the common meaning of not conforming to man's biological endowment. Much of the good that man does in the extended order is thus not due to his being naturally good; yet it is foolish to deprecate civilisation as artificial for this reason. It is artificial only in the sense in which most of our values, our language, our art and our very reason are artificial: they are not genetically embedded in our biological structures. In another sense, however, the extended order is perfectly natural: in the sense that it has itself, like similar biological phenomena, evolved naturally in the course of natural selection ...

 

[Andre]

Yet the Pleistocene ended some 11,000 years / 500 generations ago and we're still here.

One may also wonder how many ancient civilizations perished, also maybe partly because it's members could not cope being a civilisation rather than a tribe.

From Karl Popper

This civilization has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth — the transition from the tribal or "enclosed society," with its submission to magical forces, to the 'open society' which sets free the critical powers of man.

 

[mheslep]

One may also wonder how many ancient civilizations perished, also maybe partly because it's members could not cope being a civilisation rather than a tribe.

From Karl Popper

I think it likely that far, far more self-isolated tribes have perished than have trading civilizations.

I read Popper to be saying his "The Open Society ..." that the lingering problems with civilization lie in its inability to rid itself of tribal behavior: attachment to chiefs, submission to magical forces, etc.

 

[Nikitin]

I wonder if he's pondered how much energy would be involved - and how much time.

There really isn't a practical alternative to the planet we currently inhabit.

Maybe not now, but in 300 or so years, who knows. Have some vision and faith.

Imo it's more likely that we start expanding into the universe, than defy our nature by achieving an environmentalist paradise.

Atmosphere. Mar's core has shut down, so there is no magnetic field to protect the planet and maintain it's atmosphere.

Don't worry, it took solar wind billions of years to erode the Martian atmosphere. In addition, a thick atmosphere should be able to protect against cosmic rays just fine. Trust me, I live in Norway (and thus am offered little protection from the magnetic field).

A Terraforming of Mars isn't as impossible as you may think.

 

[Andre]

I think it likely that far, far more self-isolated tribes have perished than have trading civilizations.

I read Popper to be saying his "The Open Society ..." that the lingering problems with civilization lie in its inability to rid itself of tribal behavior: attachment to chiefs, submission to magical forces, etc.

That's not a very effective society isn't it. But there are more sociological problems, our tendency to create enemies, as continuation of tribal wars. We see enemies everywhere, wait until election time again. Obviously wars have allowed technological advances that facilitate space exploration but with all those distractions which cost a lot of effort, will there be a point where war is simply no more affordable? So where will the assets come from to build battlestar Galactica and its space fleet.

 

[Nikitin]

If we meet an Alien civilization, I'm sure we'll realize just how alike we are, and start warring against the outsiders instead :p

 

[jim hardy]

If we meet an Alien civilization, I'm sure we'll realize just how alike we are, and start warring against the outsiders instead :p

Dad always said:
"That's why the Lord put habitable planets so far apart , so it'd be too difficult for us to have wars with each other."

 

[Andre]

So, obviously, it appears that the urge to wage war is the absolute dominant thought for both humans and aliens.

 

[HeLiXe]

It would be bad news for Mother Nature if our species lasted even that long. The poor thing :[

awwww. This gave me the warm fuzzies

 

[4568131947]

This is the great lie... I get you thinking about going somewhere else while my sole purpose is to perpetuate and continue with my own greed. We live in a very arrogant society, each circle "believes" it has the answers. Everything else is trivialized. There was greater truth long ago than there is now. Greater balance. Is it a sign of intelligence for a species to understand the nature of balance and still destroy and consume all of it knowing it will be it's own demise?

The American Indian forefathers were smarter than all of us combined. Why? They knew without knowing what certain choices would lead to. I liked china also because it seemed that that society seemed to reach a level within the framework of science and understanding for thousands of years without destroying everything around them. China has since been infiltrated with western insanity and is now sick as we poison the rest of the world with our cursed ideas. You can have great truth without destroying everything, but when greed holds the reigns to science as it does, the endgame can only go bad for all of us.

Choose wisely...

 

[Monsterboy]

Some time ago he also said that we should try to avoid contact with extra-terrestrials because they might invade us.