Really, Neil? Really?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

"If we continue increasing the population of the Earth as we have been over the past decade or so, 500 years from now there will only be enough room on Earth's surface for everyone to only stand up straight." -- NdGT

Oh, this again. Excuse me, but wasn't that what we used to hear about the year 2020 back in 1980!? That by the rates of population growth we had back then, there would come a point where people would only have enough space to stand on top of each other?

One would expect from a scientist who likes to present himself as an advocate of reason and critical thinking, to know a thing or two about the complexity of demographic systems, the huge palette of factors bringing a certain level of self-regulation to population (even with the added factor of modern technology developing at an almost exponential rate), etc. But no, he aimed for the scandalous, the sensationalist and the alarmist.

I'm not saying overpopulation isn't one of the major problems that humankind has to address on a long-term basis. We do need smart decisions and policies in that respect, and it's a complex process that's not going to be easy at all - for sure. But abandoning reason and speaking nonsense in your attempt to dumb science down to pander to the lowest denominator - now THAT is something that tends to chip large chunks off a scientist's credibility. It does a disservice to science. And I'm saying that as someone who truly loves and enjoys Neil's work.

Comments

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

We can always build up instead of out.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Or dig in.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

He's not even dumbing things down and ignoring the self-regulation built into most systems, he's just wrong. The population growth is 1.1% per year. Over 500 years, this would mean we'll have 237 times as many people as we do now (1.011 ^ 500). The current population density of the world is 116 people per square mile of land (even though NdGT said Earth's surface rather than just it's land, we'll go with land). This would mean the population density, if we keep reproducing like we have for the past 500 years, would be just over 27,000 people per square mile, a little less dense than New York City, were people can and do lay down.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Sorry, for the next 500 years, not the past 500.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Saying overpopulation is a problem, or predicting it will be a problem - is easy....

The tricky part is suggesting solutions - because there are only three - and if sending large numbers of people into space isn't a viable option when that time comes - that narrows it down to two. I think we all know what those two are, just like we all know what the response will be if any scientist/scientists/world leader say it out loud...

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Of the two, I'd opt for birth control/sterilisation.

The other is just a trifle gruesome.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Sure. Encouraged, but optional (maybe rewarded?) birth control would be plan A. That's still messy though - even if it works. If it doesn't, then it gets gruesome.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Meh, it's not like he's exactly a scientist. More like science popularizer. They tend to get a bit crackpot-y at times.

[halialkers]

An extra level of nastiness with these ideas tends to be that (with Neil himself as a major exception) a lot of the people saying this tend to be white urbanites and a lot of the population selected for the erstwhile population reduction is predominantly black, brown, and yellow. So that basically amounts to white people saying 'let's get rid of millions of CENSORED and CENSORED and CENSORED for a whiter, richer future' even when it's not exactly intended to be. And sometimes with some people it very much is intended with malice aforethought.

Not with Neil himself, obviously, because he's black, but....

[garote]

Sure, but even that all sounds really parochial to the average citizen of India. "White people? Where??"