"Theoretically the world has a far greater carrying capacity, given human ingenuity. But how enjoyable is it for an essentially biophilic species to be living in an ever more polluted and claustrophobic human constructed environment, with little engagement with nature. Some people don't seem to mind it as it is better than alternatives. For provincial Chinese it might beat the periodic famines and disease of the last century. Still you have to wonder where they would be without the one child policy, whether any of this urbanization would even be feasible - and whether Erhlichs predictions wouldn't have been more accurate had they not been acted on."
As a species we are relatively few on the surface of the world. 7bil would fit nicely on an 85km square parade ground, say greater Sydney. OK, no one wants to live like that but for a sense of proportion that is all we are. vast areas of the world are uninhabited or have very low population densities. I think I read somewhere that termites are the greatest specie in terms of biomass, more than humans. The issue of crowded cities is more a question of economics.Pollution too, as countries become wealthier their priorities change and I'm sure China will one day be no more polluted than London, it's just a stage they are going through. As to where would China be but for the one child policy one only needs to look at Taiwan, ie. China without Mao. With a higher population density than the mainland they have managed to feed themselves and prosper without the infanticide and forced abortions etc. Their demographic profile is better too. China has a real problem coming soon as the older generation retire and because of their one child policy there will be a sharp fall in the number of workers to support the retirees.
"But rather than famine and mass extermination, the real story is huge rises in agricultural commodity prices, riots and civil wars in countries where they matter, mass immigration from these regions, and environmental degradation in commodity producing nations and elsewhere. China has had the advantage of being able to import its resource needs from surplus in the rest of the world, and it at least has an upper limit on its population."
Huge rises in agricultural prices are good for us as an agricultural commodity producing country.They won't last long as others will increase production to grab the $$.Higher food prices are just the market's way of increasing production.
"Will the same apply to other countries who failed to put a lid on population growth? Because we haven't yet reached a limit that someone famously said we would, will that always be true? Even if we could technically survive with a much larger population - is this desirable?"
The world population growth rate is slowing, which is expected as incomes rise. In Australia family size has been declining for a hundred years as we have urbanized and become affluent. Everyone will adjust as we always have.
To me, at least, Erhlich and the like are just publicity seekers. No one would pay them to say all is fine(or at least rocking on as it always has for better or worse)but come up with a scary scenario and it sells books, gives them lifetime employment etc all the goodies. Same goes for the AGW scare.
