8,000,000,000 people!

[PC2]

There Are 8 Billion People. We Should Celebrate Superabundance, Not Lament “Overpopulation”

Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people: as of today, there are eight billion of us. Contrary to what the environmental movement tells us, that eight billionth person is a blessing, not a curse.

We should be celebrating. Person number eight billion brought another mouth to feed, it’s true, but she also arrived with nimble hands and, most importantly, one of those wonderful little idea factories that we call a brain.

In the very short run, our eight billionth neighbor puts at least some pressure on our stock of proved resources. By buying her diapers, her parents are calling resources like adhesives and polymers out of other uses. Prices rise just a little. In the long run, however, necessity is the mother of invention. People find new, innovative ways to economize on the resources we know about, and they find new, innovative ways to find new resources.

This is what the economist Julian Simon thought, and more importantly, it’s what he demonstrated in a body of research that, in my opinion, should have won him a Nobel Prize. The human mind, Simon argued, is The Ultimate Resource, and when people are free to invent, innovate, and try new things, they create new possibilities.

As my friend and coauthor Deirdre McCloskey put it, every new product—and every new resource—begins as an idea. More people means more brains. More brains means more ideas. As McCloskey and I argue in our book Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World (which I discuss here and here, and which is available in paperback this month), economic liberty and social dignity for innovators and entrepreneurs put those minds to work and led to the cornucopia we enjoy today.

Simon demonstrated this by looking at the data. He showed that in the long run, resource prices tended to fall. This is consistent with his thesis that more brains are a blessing, and it flatly contradicts the popular-but-wrong idea that there are too many people and that we have exceeded the world’s carrying capacity. Others have followed in Simon’s footsteps and expanded on his argument. Just one contribution to this tradition is Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet by Marian L. Tupy and Gale L. Pooley. I reviewed it for the American Institute for Economic Research, and it’s a book everyone should have on their bookshelf—or as I do, in their Kindle library.

Today marks a momentous occasion that should be cause for dancing, not mourning. We should welcome our new neighbors, not reject them or worry that they’ll somehow leave us worse off. If we embrace creativity and innovation, like Julian Simon suggests, every new person is a small step toward a better and brighter future for all of us.

---

Is anyone else celebrating this new achievement? I personally think the author of this article hit the nail on the head when it comes to understanding population growth and why it is a good thing. But what are your thoughts?

[Paranoid Android]

Earth has only finite resources. This might not end well.

Even if we find solutions to say fossil fuels, I think having this many people on earth will still demand resources that just will not be replaced or not replaced to keep up with demand.

[unfilteredJW]

Earth has only finite resources. This might not end well.

Even if we find solutions to say fossil fuels, I think having this many people on earth will still demand resources that just will not be replaced or not replaced to keep up with demand.

Well OP believe fairies and unicorns will fix all the problems.

[zEmini]

Population is the biggest threat to climate.

[Draco-Onis]

Population is the biggest threat to climate.

Actually the data doesn't support that, it's the bad allocation of resources and technology driven by the pursuit of profit. Although 8 billion is a big number the world's population is stagnating and will reach a flat point eventually. For example the reason for so much plastic in the ocean is because the plastic industry has convinced people recycling works (it doesn't) so that they don't have to use 100% recyclable or biodegradable plastic/containers which is more expensive.

Humanity has more than enough to feed and handle more people than this it's just that we aren't going to spend the money where it's needed for a number of reasons.

[Shadowferal]

Born into low to zero quality of life...

[zEmini]

Actually the data doesn't support that, it's the bad allocation of resources and technology driven by the pursuit of profit. Although 8 billion is a big number the world's population is stagnating and will reach a flat point eventually. For example the reason for so much plastic in the ocean is because the plastic industry has convinced people recycling works (it doesn't) so that they don't have to use 100% recyclable or biodegradable plastic/containers which is more expensive.

Humanity has more than enough to feed and handle more people than this it's just that we aren't going to spend the money where it's needed for a number of reasons.

That is some bad data then. Every baby born is consuming resources and shitting out garbage.

[Shadowferal]

Actually the data doesn't support that, it's the bad allocation of resources and technology driven by the pursuit of profit. Although 8 billion is a big number the world's population is stagnating and will reach a flat point eventually. For example the reason for so much plastic in the ocean is because the plastic industry has convinced people recycling works (it doesn't) so that they don't have to use 100% recyclable or biodegradable plastic/containers which is more expensive. Humanity has more than enough to feed and handle more people than this it's just that we aren't going to spend the money where it's needed for a number of reasons.

Is this saying anything that helps anytime between "now" and "soon?"

[Draco-Onis]

Is this saying anything that helps anytime between "now" and "soon?"

Oh no we are pretty screwed kind of were decades ago unless we can magically replace every leader in the world with people who will do what needs to be done.

- - - Updated - - -

That is some bad data then. Every baby born is consuming resources and shitting out garbage.

That's mistaking the forest for the trees, the amount of pollution one badly run company makes dwarfs millions of babies beside the whole using people as slave labor thing they often do.

[Paranoid Android]

Actually the data doesn't support that, it's the bad allocation of resources and technology driven by the pursuit of profit. Although 8 billion is a big number the world's population is stagnating and will reach a flat point eventually. For example the reason for so much plastic in the ocean is because the plastic industry has convinced people recycling works (it doesn't) so that they don't have to use 100% recyclable or biodegradable plastic/containers which is more expensive.

Humanity has more than enough to feed and handle more people than this it's just that we aren't going to spend the money where it's needed for a number of reasons.

I'll agree a little but in the end people demand things and only a finite resources on earth. Generally the ones we need.

For instance if we could get say almost all of earth's population above poverty level or even better that equal to what we call industrialized western countries, then bringing more people up to our middle class, where simply put we are the worst for contributing to climate change than the rest of the world. Just keeping people at below poverty level is not beneficial either.

- - - Updated - - -

That is some bad data then. Every baby born is consuming resources and shitting out garbage.

This is also the point of our world is based on consumerism. We want to sell people shit, Thus a drain on our resources.

[Endus]

Is this saying anything that helps anytime between "now" and "soon?"

Realistically, the most direct route to something "helping" on that time frame would be a global plague (COVID was bad, think 10x worse), or massive global warfare. Like, nuclear winter is a thing, and it would temporarily mollify rising global temperatures in the very short term (while doing nothing about the overall problem, so it will quickly return to warming trends).

Those are obviously horrible for human civilization, however.

If there's a single threat to the planet, Draco-Onis kinda edged up to it but didn't go the whole way. It's capitalism. The idea of growth as an expectation, among other problems. Why did plastic companies develop their own iconography that apes recycling labels but isn't? To pad profits by presenting a false image that their products were recyclable. Why have fossil fuel companies lied about GHG emissions? Profits. Why have energy companies resisted diversifying into green power generation? That's cost-intensive, and that hurts profits. We had the technological capacity to shift to mostly green generation (including nuclear, which yes, is basically green) in the '90s. We haven't, because it wasn't profitable to the capitalists. And they paid millions into propaganda to make sure we didn't know that was the only reason.

Capitalism and the myth of infinite growth is choking this planet to death. We can be sustainable with this, or even greater, population levels. But not with capitalists seeking to exploit the system for personal gain at the expense of others and the planet's sustainability. Capitalism is antithetical to a prosperous, stable humanity.

[Grinning Serpent]

We can't sustain 8 billion people living like middle income Americans. Hell, even 2 billion would probably be impossible. We consume far too many resources, per person, in developed first-world countries to sustain that for everyone in the world. Which is why you have a few billion "haves" and several billion "have nots" that mostly exist to produce for the excesses of the "haves."

And at any rate, breeding like animals doesn't strike me as an achievement. Kids are a responsibility and there's way too many people out there becoming parents when they have no right to be - they aren't responsible, they aren't giving their kids the kind of life and upbringing they should receive, and our government is failing to cover the gaps.

Humans would probably be a lot better off if we weren't basically in estrus 24/7.

[Paranoid Android]

Realistically, the most direct route to something "helping" on that time frame would be a global plague (COVID was bad, think 10x worse), or massive global warfare. Like, nuclear winter is a thing, and it would temporarily mollify rising global temperatures in the very short term (while doing nothing about the overall problem, so it will quickly return to warming trends).

Those are obviously horrible for human civilization, however.

If there's a single threat to the planet, Draco-Onis kinda edged up to it but didn't go the whole way. It's capitalism. The idea of growth as an expectation, among other problems. Why did plastic companies develop their own iconography that apes recycling labels but isn't? To pad profits by presenting a false image that their products were recyclable. Why have fossil fuel companies lied about GHG emissions? Profits. Why have energy companies resisted diversifying into green power generation? That's cost-intensive, and that hurts profits. We had the technological capacity to shift to mostly green generation (including nuclear, which yes, is basically green) in the '90s. We haven't, because it wasn't profitable to the capitalists. And they paid millions into propaganda to make sure we didn't know that was the only reason.

Capitalism and the myth of infinite growth is choking this planet to death. We can be sustainable with this, or even greater, population levels. But not with capitalists seeking to exploit the system for personal gain at the expense of others and the planet's sustainability. Capitalism is antithetical to a prosperous, stable humanity.

So are we on the same boat? I stated consumerism, which is capitalism.

Most of us want the world's population to reach above the poverty line, yet are we striving for what we call western middle class? The west is all based on consumerism and building a large house in a suburban sprawl, buying things just to have things. So a major resource drain.

Yes, capitalism is to deliver us consumerism something with regard to how it effects the earth and society. They are very short term in thinking. Also remember with Musk and maybe another thread where the argument is since we have lower birthrates will bring collapse of the world. Why? We need those people to buy shit.

[qwerty123456]

Actually the data doesn't support that, it's the bad allocation of resources and technology driven by the pursuit of profit. Although 8 billion is a big number the world's population is stagnating and will reach a flat point eventually. For example the reason for so much plastic in the ocean is because the plastic industry has convinced people recycling works (it doesn't) so that they don't have to use 100% recyclable or biodegradable plastic/containers which is more expensive.

Humanity has more than enough to feed and handle more people than this it's just that we aren't going to spend the money where it's needed for a number of reasons.

That's like a drunk saying "My drinking isn't the problem its the driving while drinking, the fights, the blackouts, and the blowjobs for booze thats the problem!" Sure technically the drinking isn't the problem if you can solve all the other problems.

Nobody wants to go back to an Amish lifestyle. Not even the Amish which is why they have rules where they can have cars and tech and shit as long as one person owns it and a different person uses it.

And there is no way on earth Capitalism is going to let people stop buying I-phones and just make 1 "perfect" version for people to have their entire life.

We would literally have to rewrite the entire human condition for like 15 generations in order to make overpopulation not actually a problem.

[Endus]

So are we on the same boat? I stated consumerism, which is capitalism.

It's currently capitalism. You could establish a consumer-driven socialist market economy, however, with sufficient regulatory practice to ensure it doesn't act predatorily with regards to natural resources and emissions/waste production.

Most of us want the world's population to reach above the poverty line, yet are we striving for what we call western middle class? The west is all based on consumerism and building a large house in a suburban sprawl, buying things just to have things. So a major resource drain.

We need a serious rethink on housing, specifically. Suburbia needs to die. It's fine if we're talking a small satellite town/village (I currently live in one outside Ottawa), but growth should pretty quickly turn vertical. The big issue with that is we design condos and apartments as "cheap" options. There needs to be options like, say, 2-story condos in a high-rise with 3 beds and 2.5 baths, that are priced comparable to similar single detached houses, if not a little cheaper. Those don't need to be goldilocks options, they need to be a pretty broadly available standard. Checking Realtor.ca for condos in Ottawa, and requiring 3+ bedrooms and an apartment format (to get away from townhouses) and there's a few. 4 bedrooms? There's one. And it's listed at C$4,600,000. 4+ bedroom townhouses and single detached are really common, however, at at less that C$500,000, too.

Apartment living needs to be just as "middle class" as suburbia. We need to build vertically.

For the record, while I'm in a single detached in a satellite town, I was trying to get a condo in a comparable price range with similar amenities. They didn't exist. I'd prefer the latter, but it's all either cheap 2-3 bedroom apartments or multi-million dollar luxury units. The middle doesn't exist in apartment formats, around here.

[Paranoid Android]

It's currently capitalism. You could establish a consumer-driven socialist market economy, however, with sufficient regulatory practice to ensure it doesn't act predatorily with regards to natural resources and emissions/waste production.



We need a serious rethink on housing, specifically. Suburbia needs to die. It's fine if we're talking a small satellite town/village (I currently live in one outside Ottawa), but growth should pretty quickly turn vertical. The big issue with that is we design condos and apartments as "cheap" options. There needs to be options like, say, 2-story condos in a high-rise with 3 beds and 2.5 baths, that are priced comparable to similar single detached houses, if not a little cheaper. Those don't need to be goldilocks options, they need to be a pretty broadly available standard. Checking Realtor.ca for condos in Ottawa, and requiring 3+ bedrooms and an apartment format (to get away from townhouses) and there's a few. 4 bedrooms? There's one. And it's listed at C$4,600,000. 4+ bedroom townhouses and single detached are really common, however, at at less that C$500,000, too.

Apartment living needs to be just as "middle class" as suburbia. We need to build vertically.

Oh yes! I could go on a rant about our western society and the urban sprawl. Favorite YouTube channels are; City Beautiful and Not Just Bikes and the failure of urban sprawl and how car centric is/was a horrible design.

[PC2]

Earth has only finite resources.

While it's true that humans will only ever have access to a finite amount of physical objects(resources) at any given point in time it's also true that the ways in which we can arrange and re-arrange those objects in better and more useful ways is infinite.

Every baby born is consuming resources and shitting out garbage.

That's fine since we can always create more new resources over time and we can find better ways to manage, recycle, or decompose waste material.

[Milchshake]

Why do Global Population threads bring out everyone's Inner Fascist?

Note to the next 8 billion people; Get rid of the internet.

[Edge-]

That's fine since we can always create more new resources

So during famines we can just...make more food? Is that how this works? How on earth have we ever suffered shortages of anything if we can just always create more new resources?!

[Draco-Onis]

That's like a drunk saying "My drinking isn't the problem its the driving while drinking, the fights, the blackouts, and the blowjobs for booze thats the problem!" Sure technically the drinking isn't the problem if you can solve all the other problems.

Nobody wants to go back to an Amish lifestyle. Not even the Amish which is why they have rules where they can have cars and tech and shit as long as one person owns it and a different person uses it.

And there is no way on earth Capitalism is going to let people stop buying I-phones and just make 1 "perfect" version for people to have their entire life.

We would literally have to rewrite the entire human condition for like 15 generations in order to make overpopulation not actually a problem.

Who said we have to go back to the Amish lifestyle to live sustainably? We would have to give up luxuries of course but we wouldn't be going back 15 generations if anything we would be moving forward by quite a bit. Whether it is in our lifetime or our children it is the lifestyle humanity will have to adopt to survive however we have decided to live in the now and not worry about the later. Besides the people who will suffer the most from climate change are not going to be the ones responsible for most of it.