According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>:

On 2026-03-24, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:48:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

Yet another argument against population growth...

A country with a low birth rate ends up being full of old people.
That?s not a happy place to be.

It's a bump. It'll pass.

UN demographers disagree with you. The world's population is currently
about 8.3 billion. The expect it to peak around 10 billion in 2084,
and then shrink. The US has a higher birth rate than most other rich
countries and even here we've been below replacement fertility for the
past 50 years.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

I disagree. It is not just population growth; there are a number of factors, see:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This is a physics-based analysis of energy usage, economics,
and population growth.

Part 1 is very instructive (and somewhat depressing).

It's surprisingly poorly informed. He seems unaware of actual
demographic trends, with fertility in even poor countries dropping
a lot faster than anyone expected a decade ago.

Citing "The Population Bomb" is a giveaway, a book full of
predictions that were just wrong.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

I disagree. It is not just population growth; there are a number of factors, see:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This is a physics-based analysis of energy usage, economics,
and population growth.

Part 1 is very instructive (and somewhat depressing).

It's surprisingly poorly informed. He seems unaware of actual
demographic trends, with fertility in even poor countries dropping
a lot faster than anyone expected a decade ago.

Can you point out where he discusses those demographic trends?

He notes the growth rate has fallen to 1.1% on page 32.

He even explicity states
"The moderation to 1% since that period is reassuring,
but we are not at all out of the woods yet."

Citing "The Population Bomb" is a giveaway, a book full of
predictions that were just wrong.

All Tom wrote was:

"A famous book by Paul Ehrlich called The
Population Bomb [18], first published in 1968, expressed understandable
alarm at the 2% rate that had only increased to that point."

His only comment about it was

"the moderation to 1% since that period is reassuring, but we
are not at all out of the woods yet."

And he writes:

"Overpopulation proves to be temporary, as exhaustion of
food resources, increased predation, and in some cases
disease (another form of predation, really) knock back
the population."


The remainder of Tom's book is about the growth in the usage
of energy and the consequences thereof. And he didn't anticipate
the current increase in demand due to the irrational AI bubble.

What you seem to miss is that the entire economy is predicated
on growth. Without population growth, how do you expect the
economy to grow?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

It appears that Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> said:

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

I disagree. It is not just population growth; there are a number of factors, see:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This is a physics-based analysis of energy usage, economics,
and population growth.

Part 1 is very instructive (and somewhat depressing).

It's surprisingly poorly informed. He seems unaware of actual
demographic trends, with fertility in even poor countries dropping
a lot faster than anyone expected a decade ago.

Can you point out where he discusses those demographic trends?

He notes the growth rate has fallen to 1.1% on page 32.

Demographers expect it to turn negative by the 2080s. We have problems
but exponential population growth is not one of them.

And he writes:

"Overpopulation proves to be temporary, as exhaustion of
food resources, increased predation, and in some cases
disease (another form of predation, really) knock back
the population."

That's what Malthus said, and he was wrong too. What we see is that as
people get richer, they have fewer children, by choice, not due to
starvation.

What you seem to miss is that the entire economy is predicated
on growth. Without population growth, how do you expect the
economy to grow?

Individual people get richer. In 1960 the population of the US was 180M, now it's about 350M, so it hasn't quite doubled. In 1960 our inflation adjusted GDP was 3.5 trillion, now it's 24 trillion, so the average American is more than three times richer than her mother (maybe grandmother) was in 1960.

There are certainly significant questions about how you structure an economy with a stable population, like to what age can we reasonably expect people to work
and how do we take care of an unprecedented elderly population, but
that's not incompatible with economic growth.

To answer an obvious question, we've also gotten better at using physical resources effectively, using about half as much oil per dollar of GNP as we did in the 1970s. We have a long way to go, particularly with the current administration
determined to move backward, but it's not hard to see ways forward.

R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-03-25, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

What you seem to miss is that the entire economy is predicated
on growth. Without population growth, how do you expect the
economy to grow?

Perhaps it's time for a new economic model. What I see as a result
of all this precious growth is shortages in everything from food to
housing to electricity. Oh, it's great for those at the top - they've
never had it better - but for the masses it can only get worse.
The planet is finite; growth is not - at least until something
catastrophic happens, and I wouldn't wish that kind of future
on anyone. See my .sig.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

It appears that Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> said:

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

I disagree. It is not just population growth; there are a number of factors, see:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This is a physics-based analysis of energy usage, economics,
and population growth.

Part 1 is very instructive (and somewhat depressing).

It's surprisingly poorly informed. He seems unaware of actual >>>demographic trends, with fertility in even poor countries dropping
a lot faster than anyone expected a decade ago.

Can you point out where he discusses those demographic trends?

He notes the growth rate has fallen to 1.1% on page 32.

Demographers expect it to turn negative by the 2080s. We have problems
but exponential population growth is not one of them.

And he writes:

"Overpopulation proves to be temporary, as exhaustion of
food resources, increased predation, and in some cases
disease (another form of predation, really) knock back
the population."

That's what Malthus said, and he was wrong too. What we see is that as
people get richer, they have fewer children, by choice, not due to >starvation.

What this leaves out is that the main reason that Ehrlich's
predictions didn't pan out was due to the exploitation of
fossil fuels for agriculture (machinery, but more importantly,
fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides). Without that
boost to agriculture, it's likely that there would have
been consequences by now due to overpopulation.

"people get richer and have fewer children" seems to be
not to be completley accurate at all (cf. Elon Musk).

It's not wealth that reduces population growth, is is rather
the cost of having and raising kids (and the availability
of contraceptives, and the migration from ag to industry
where the labor provided by children is no longer necessary,
not to mention the advances in medicine that have reduced
the child mortality rate).

Individual people get richer. In 1960 the population of the US was 180M, now >it's about 350M, so it hasn't quite doubled. In 1960 our inflation adjusted GDP
was 3.5 trillion, now it's 24 trillion, so the average American is more than >three times richer than her mother (maybe grandmother) was in 1960.

Percentage of GDP is not an indicator of wealth,
particularly when so much of the actual wealth (32%)
is in the hands of 1% of the population.

To answer an obvious question, we've also gotten better at using physical >resources effectively, using about half as much oil per dollar of GNP as we did
in the 1970s. We have a long way to go, particularly with the current administration
determined to move backward, but it's not hard to see ways forward.

This doesn't account for the fact that the rate of global energy
production and consumption continues to rise at an exponential rate.

I'd be interested in an enumeration of some of those ways forward,
particularly with the current clown show in charge.

Yes, we should be embracing solar, wind and battery storage,
along with geothermal resources and other renewables. Oil and
CH4 are best used for chemical feedstocks rather than combustion.

While I support the use of nuclear power, I don't see it as a
panacea, nor do I believe that it can completely supplant
fossile fuels, even if thorium-based reactors become feasible,
simply due to fact that resources on a single planet are
fundamentally limited, and as they are consumed, cost more
to obtain (yes, there is uranium in seawater. Can it be
extracted and refined into fissile materials suitable for
fission reactors at reasonable cost to support 18,000 new 1GW reactors
to replace the current fossil supplies?)

Dr. Murphy's illustration of the absurdity of long-term growth in
energy production (even at 2% per annum) with respect the the
average global temperature is eye-opening. After all, all
energy production (and consumption!) produces heat.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 3/25/26 10:43, John Levine wrote:

It appears that Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> said:

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

I disagree. It is not just population growth; there are a number of factors, see:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

This is a physics-based analysis of energy usage, economics,
and population growth.

Part 1 is very instructive (and somewhat depressing).

It's surprisingly poorly informed. He seems unaware of actual
demographic trends, with fertility in even poor countries dropping
a lot faster than anyone expected a decade ago.

Can you point out where he discusses those demographic trends?

He notes the growth rate has fallen to 1.1% on page 32.

Demographers expect it to turn negative by the 2080s. We have problems
but exponential population growth is not one of them.

And he writes:

"Overpopulation proves to be temporary, as exhaustion of
food resources, increased predation, and in some cases
disease (another form of predation, really) knock back
the population."

That's what Malthus said, and he was wrong too. What we see is that as
people get richer, they have fewer children, by choice, not due to starvation.

What you seem to miss is that the entire economy is predicated
on growth. Without population growth, how do you expect the
economy to grow?

Individual people get richer. In 1960 the population of the US was 180M, now it's about 350M, so it hasn't quite doubled. In 1960 our inflation adjusted GDP
was 3.5 trillion, now it's 24 trillion, so the average American is more than three times richer than her mother (maybe grandmother) was in 1960.

The *mean* American. Median and mode don't look so great.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

That's what Malthus said, and he was wrong too. What we see is that as >>people get richer, they have fewer children, by choice, not due to >>starvation.

What this leaves out is that the main reason that Ehrlich's
predictions didn't pan out was due to the exploitation of
fossil fuels for agriculture (machinery, but more importantly,
fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides). Without that
boost to agriculture, it's likely that there would have
been consequences by now due to overpopulation.

Yes, that's also why Malthus was wrong. He didn't expect the
industrial revolution.

"people get richer and have fewer children" seems to be
not to be completley accurate at all (cf. Elon Musk).

We're talking about multi-decade global trends here, not the ocasional
whacked out narcissist.

It's not wealth that reduces population growth, is is rather
the cost of having and raising kids (and the availability
of contraceptives, and the migration from ag to industry
where the labor provided by children is no longer necessary,
not to mention the advances in medicine that have reduced
the child mortality rate).

That might have been true 200 years ago, but it's not why fertility is
dropping today in countries from South Korea to Italy to the U.S.
In 1960 the US number of births per woman was about 3.6, now it's
about 1.7. I was around in 1960 and the migration from ag to industry
had happened, as had medical advances that allowed most babies to
survive. But the birth rate has continued to drop, world wide, a lot.

We have found that when childbearing is optional, a lot of women opt not to.

Individual people get richer. In 1960 the population of the US was 180M, now >>it's about 350M, so it hasn't quite doubled. In 1960 our inflation adjusted GDP
was 3.5 trillion, now it's 24 trillion, so the average American is more than >>three times richer than her mother (maybe grandmother) was in 1960.

Percentage of GDP is not an indicator of wealth,
particularly when so much of the actual wealth (32%)
is in the hands of 1% of the population.

I agree that the US is much less equal than it was in 1960 but it's
also a lot richer overall. In any event the question was how does an
economy grow without population growth and the answer is that for the
past several centuries economies have grown faster than populations.
That part of the problem is solved.

To answer an obvious question, we've also gotten better at using physical >>resources effectively, using about half as much oil per dollar of GNP as we did
in the 1970s. We have a long way to go, particularly with the current administration
determined to move backward, but it's not hard to see ways forward.

This doesn't account for the fact that the rate of global energy
production and consumption continues to rise at an exponential rate.

Sigh. It's not exponential and hasn't been for a while. It's still growing which is a problem, but not like it used to.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

This doesn't account for the fact that the rate of global energy
production and consumption continues to rise at an exponential rate.

Sigh. It's not exponential and hasn't been for a while. It's still growing >which is a problem, but not like it used to.

2% annual growth -is- exponential (2.2% last year). Even the average growth
of 1.5% in the second decade of this century will result in a doubling
of energy consumed every 47 years. (2% doubles every 35 years,
1% doubles every 70 years).

Will that growth rate (which is been pretty consistent since
the start of the 20th century) continue ad infinitum? If not,
what will stop it (aside catastrophe?). There is still a large
part of the world where the annual increase in energy consumption
will grow at a larger rate as they modernize.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-03-25, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:

This doesn't account for the fact that the rate of global energy
production and consumption continues to rise at an exponential rate.

Sigh. It's not exponential and hasn't been for a while. It's still
growing which is a problem, but not like it used to.

2% annual growth -is- exponential (2.2% last year). Even the average
growth of 1.5% in the second decade of this century will result in a
doubling of energy consumed every 47 years. (2% doubles every 35 years,
1% doubles every 70 years).

My 40-year doubling is based on an old UN figure of 1.7% per year.

Will that growth rate (which is been pretty consistent since
the start of the 20th century) continue ad infinitum? If not,
what will stop it (aside catastrophe?).

My money is on catastrophe. Hardly anyone seems to want to see
the growth rate slow. Here in B.C. the provincial government
has overridden local government's planning departments to force
rezoning for higher density. Meanwhile, schools and hospitals
are overcrowded, roads are becoming more and more congested,
and housing prices have soared to the point where most young
people have given up hope of ever owning their own home.

There is still a large
part of the world where the annual increase in energy consumption
will grow at a larger rate as they modernize.

Unfortunately, infrastructure can't keep up. Our Site C dam finally
came online several years late and 100% over budget (which is
standard for any provincial government project) - and projections
are that between electric cars and AI data centres we're going to
need three more. All we have to do is figure out where to build
them and how we're going to pay for them - our current deficit
has caused Moody's to downgrade B.C.'s credit rating yet again.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 03:46:31 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

and housing prices have soared to the point where most young
people have given up hope of ever owning their own home.

Meanwhile, over in China, one of the two most populous nations in the
world, entire cities? worth of apartment blocks lie empty or
unfinished, building projects abandoned as the result of the collapse
of a massive housing bubble.

If the Chinese could figure out a way to export housing, I?m sure
there are many nations that would be willing buyers ...

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)