Passy

The size of the global population has increased several fold in recent decades. The rate of growth remains around 80 to 90 million per annum. There are massive blatant grave consequences of this around the world.

Is it really not blindingly obvious to you that we have passed the planet’s optimum population level?

When and at what population level do you think this will happen then?

“…the counterbalance to that is the creativity of humanity to address those issues.”

The creativity or technological ability of humans is what has given us this staggering population blowout. Wouldn’t it have been nice if we had been able to use our ingenuity to improve the quality of life for everyone, instead of just for a small minority while greatly boosting population growth with the vast majority living in poverty.

Our ‘ingenuity’ has actually been a pretty damn superior level of dumbness!

Further technological advancements will serve to prop up continuous population growth, rather than improve the quality of life for billions living in poverty.

We’ll start to show some genuine ingenuity when we start to strive to live in balance with the life support systems of this planet…and that means striving to stabilise our population with a vengeance, along with maximised technological advancement.

Ludwig

Your comments are assertions. Is there any evidence we have passed our so called optimal population level? Just becaase it is blindingly obvious to you doesn't make it so, or correct.

It was blindingly obvious to every Catholic that the sun revolved around the earth too.

If we have indeed gone past our optimal population level as you assert, what is the solution? Barbarism? Feudalism? Mass extermination or its cousin, just war?

Passy,
The problem is there isn't a definative Carrying Capacity(CC)number. Any number would be based on specific assumptions and circumstances.Change any one or number there of, and the CC changes. Depending on the quantum and factor(s)changed so to the CC changes widely.
I have in recent times seen several (highly qualified) numbers. The biggest wild card at the moment is the effects of the various factors that seem to indicate Global Climate Change.

Quantity and Quality of life

Look more closely at one driver of pro-natalist policies

What matters more – the survival of the most humane and civilised values of the West or the continuation of particular ethnic groups as large proportions of a nation?
If we could work to ensure the continuation of the most humane and civilised values of all our civilisations East and West, then problems about ethnic and religious outbreeding competitions could be solved.

A tragic thing is that Western humane and civilised values are having a struggle to be maintained and publicly known. As it is, immigrant groups in Europe and USA can be struck more by the less civilised and less humane features of our culture because these are so prominent in the popular media and in social behaviour. Consequently they can think that their own less tolerant religious rules of conduct and thought are superior, rather than accommodating also what is worth preserving in their new countries.
'Where there is no vision,the populations perish.'

The good professor states:

"Interestingly, in the developed world we still lack a convincing explanation of why some people in rich countries choose to have larger families than others and very little knowledge of why some people choose to have any children at all."

Could I suggest greed and a lack of selflessness may be part of the answer.

I have a large family because it is normal. My children learn to share, relate and work with others and tend to do so with significantly less resources and expense from their often dual income sponsored spoilt 'pigeon pair' peers.

As noted elsewhere, the number of people and their impact on the environment is proportional to the excesses that their culture allows and encourages.

Passy

“Is there any evidence we have passed our so called optimal population level?”

Yes, abundantly so.

Is there any evidence we HAVEN’T passed our so called optimal population level?

You can’t assert that we haven’t. The best you can do is say that you don’t know.

So do you really think that it is a good idea to just keep letting the population expand if you don’t really know what the consequences might be?

Wouldn’t it be vastly better to err on the side of caution?

Don’t you think the consequences of not erring on the side of caution if there is uncertainty about this the biggest issue on the planet could be absolutely disastrous?

Why on earth would you want population to continue increasing?

Why would you not want to stabilise population if there was any doubt about it having a grave negative effect on our environment, the viability of lots of other species, climate change and indeed our own future wellbeing or even survival?