The speed of light cage problem.

[Sixth Monarchist]

Part of the problem is that not all resource use is equal. If you were somehow able to invent some kind of weapon that could wipe out everyone in Africa, you'd probably put a dent in the human race's resource use, not a crater, and most of that would be attributable to the more advanced economies like South Africa, and maybe Ghana and Kenya. You could probably eliminate large swathes of Asia with a similar impact, despite the fact that I'm now talking about halving the population. In fact, wiping out anyone outside the G20 would probably still leave over half the human race's resource use intact.

[Sigmaleph]

According to Verhulst's model, population growth only looks like an exponential while you're far from reaching the carrying capacity of the environment, and begins to slow down and approach the carrying capacity asymptotically when you get closer. In other words it looks like this (the first curve is an exponential, the other is a solution to Verhulst's equations).

Point being, assuming the basic idea is right, if we don't enact population control it will happen by itself as resources become scarce.

The thing is, that scarcity will still make the world a much shittier place for everyone living on it, and it would be preferable to avoid it entirely.

I was pretty much trying to imply that when I said "it will happen by itself". Guess I failed, sorry.
But yes, we want to avoid that.

another idea: invent a shrinking machine, shrink down the entire population, don't shrink the resources. Voila, you now have incredible amounts of resources to maintain your population.

I know this isn't a serious suggestion, but still, it cannot work. In reality, matter is discontinuous, it's made of fundamental chunks of a given size. If the shrinking machine makes a human's molecules smaller, then they cannot interact with the molecules in the unshrunk food in the usual way.

[Old Viking]

I hate to be the one to break it, but we've already rendered ourselves extinct.  The timing hasn't been nailed down yet, but 200 years is a generous guess.  If it's any consolation, it won't involve naked floating bodies, flaming swords and accordion music.

[Vene]

another idea: invent a shrinking machine, shrink down the entire population, don't shrink the resources. Voila, you now have incredible amounts of resources to maintain your population.

I know this isn't a serious suggestion, but still, it cannot work. In reality, matter is discontinuous, it's made of fundamental chunks of a given size. If the shrinking machine makes a human's molecules smaller, then they cannot interact with the molecules in the unshrunk food in the usual way.

Personally, I'm concerned about the surface area:volume ratio and other biophysical issues that result from a radical change in size without any other adjustment.

[Lithp]

Two words: Portal Gun
attach one to a telescope, point at planet, wait, arrive.

That would work out perfectly & nothing would ever go wrong.

Also, the portal beam or whatever apparently travels at the speed of light, so it could still take a looooooong time to reach anywhere habitable, plus it has to hit one of the relatively few surfaces that can actually form a portal./anal.

[Oriet]

The best way to avoid it is through sex education, and readily available birth control. Places like Denmark, which has such, still has plenty of resources, but their population is actually shrinking a little (at least according a Danish person I know). There's probably other sociological aspects influencing it that I'm not thinking of, but it is really important.

In places where sex education and birth control are lacking you end up with rapid population growth. India is actually a good example, as is obviously the quiverfull movement. China at least has put a stop to such rapid population growth (though I can't say I like how they're doing it), yet they still have such a huge population it's actually cheaper to hire someone to hold a light than to buy a tripod for it.


rosenewock21: If you're looking at a substitution for harder to raise meat because of the protein then there's actually a better solution than what you suggest and seem to be looking for. If one decides to look at the efficiency of the animal turning feed into body weight and how much processed meat is obtained from that, then the winner isn't any common livestock; it's insects (link). I know, I know, in Western nations they carry that squick factor, but considering that 80% of nations eat them regularly (link) it really is more that we're just not culturally acclimated to the idea of eating them instead of it being some innate thing. I admit I have yet to try eating insects, but the idea of honey roasted crickets does seem appealing.

[rosenewock21]

rosenewock21: If you're looking at a substitution for harder to raise meat because of the protein then there's actually a better solution than what you suggest and seem to be looking for. If one decides to look at the efficiency of the animal turning feed into body weight and how much processed meat is obtained from that, then the winner isn't any common livestock; it's insects (link). I know, I know, in Western nations they carry that squick factor, but considering that 80% of nations eat them regularly (link) it really is more that we're just not culturally acclimated to the idea of eating them instead of it being some innate thing. I admit I have yet to try eating insects, but the idea of honey roasted crickets does seem appealing.

Oooh, I completely forgot about insects! Bug pops are yummy and we already eat them as eartho-sorbate (or whatever the hotdog package wants to call them) as your link points out. Relatively little goes into raising them and they still pack a big protein punch.

I think a combination of alternative sources of protein and population control would do us wonders as a species.

[TheL]

According to Verhulst's model, population growth only looks like an exponential while you're far from reaching the carrying capacity of the environment, and begins to slow down and approach the carrying capacity asymptotically when you get closer. In other words it looks like this (the first curve is an exponential, the other is a solution to Verhulst's equations).

Point being, assuming the basic idea is right, if we don't enact population control it will happen by itself as resources become scarce.

The thing is, that scarcity will still make the world a much shittier place for everyone living on it, and it would be preferable to avoid it entirely.

I was pretty much trying to imply that when I said "it will happen by itself". Guess I failed, sorry.
But yes, we want to avoid that.

another idea: invent a shrinking machine, shrink down the entire population, don't shrink the resources. Voila, you now have incredible amounts of resources to maintain your population.

I know this isn't a serious suggestion, but still, it cannot work. In reality, matter is discontinuous, it's made of fundamental chunks of a given size. If the shrinking machine makes a human's molecules smaller, then they cannot interact with the molecules in the unshrunk food in the usual way.

"And do you know what the going rates are for really tiny atoms?  I'm not made of money!"