The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

The manuscript showing key data on Human evolution, regardless there are several shortcomings including:

Title

The title can be improved
clearly
more motivation

Introduction

The introduction should be follow a standard structure including:
The summery of Human evolution in context of Ecology
Gene Ecology and its effects on variation, diversity as well evolutionary process of humans

hypothesis, necessity, justifications must be described clearly

The aims must be presented in detail The manuscript including valuable data, regardless,the text showing some ambiguous points. a wide range of concepts are presented without a logical structure
Authors Must be:
Present the evolution steps of humans in ecology, behavior, sociobiology in association with technological progress during centuries.

Population

The population ecology of humans mainly related to culture, society, economy, technology as well behavioral terns. As you know, the gene flow, The type, quantity and quality of gene flow strongly influence the human evolutionary process

In the whole text, it can be seen that the contents are not coherent, the different parts(sections)are not separated, and the logical principles of analysis are not observed. The text severley need torevision. Explain the contents and concepts separately Increase the coherence between the contents The pattern of interpretations becomes more logical The exact objectives and necessity of the study should be explained in the discussion The manuscript is not acceptable in this form. Accordingly, must be improved extensivley  

 

 

 

Dear Editor

The manuscript showing key data on Human evolution, regardless there are several shortcomings including:

Title

The title can be improved
clearly
more motivation

Introduction

The introduction should be follow a standard structure including:
The summery of Human evolution in context of Ecology
Gene Ecology and its effects on variation, diversity as well evolutionary process of humans

hypothesis, necessity, justifications must be described clearly

The aims must be presented in detail The manuscript including valuable data, regardless,the text showing some ambiguous points. a wide range of concepts are presented without a logical structure
Authors Must be:
Present the evolution steps of humans in ecology, behavior, sociobiology in association with technological progress during centuries.

Population

The population ecology of humans mainly related to culture, society, economy, technology as well behavioral terns. As you know, the gene flow, The type, quantity and quality of gene flow strongly influence the human evolutionary process

In the whole text, it can be seen that the contents are not coherent, the different parts(sections)are not separated, and the logical principles of analysis are not observed. The text severley need torevision. Explain the contents and concepts separately Increase the coherence between the contents The pattern of interpretations becomes more logical The exact objectives and necessity of the study should be explained in the discussion

The manuscript is not acceptable in this form. Accordingly, must be improved extensiveley

 

Author Response

I thank you for your suggestions.

I  have revised the MS to reflect as many of these as I feel is reasonable. For example, my paper is an analysis based on current ecological trends. the state of the renewable energy transition and population statistics as described in the literature.  I am not reporting on a scientific experiment so a testable hypothesis is not appropriate. Instead, I lay out several premises as a starting point for the analysis and clearly state my overall objectives in the early sections. 

I have extensively revised and clarified the MS consistent with these premises and objectives. In so doing I draw  together materials from several disciplines in a uniquely comprehensive fashion to make the case that the human enterprise is likely to contract and populations to decline in this century.  You may not agree with the analysis, but my conclusions are amply supported by the literature cited and much more. 

I hope this is satisfactory.

Reviewer 2 Report

I don’t have much to comment, since this is a very well written conceptual manuscript expressing the author’s opinion on human population overgrowth and a plausible future awaiting. As much as I would agree with the author personally, I do think the journal/editor(s) needs to clearly note that this is one well-respected scientist’s opinion, not data-driven analysis, or predictive modeling. Additionally, it will be beneficial to double check if all acronyms are clearly explained when they are used in the text for the first time and if some of them might have been repeatedly explained.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments:

This is a review/opinion piece that argues that the world is overpopulated due to a combination of human population and consumption enabled by a fossil fuel economy and that reducing or controlling consumption alone will not ameliorate this and the human population is destined for (catastrophic?) decline. Many of your points are correct and valuable: we are living off of a billion year fossil fuel subsidy that is now resulting in climate change and environmental degradation; the root problem is too many people and simply controlling or reducing consumption or shifting to renewables is not sufficient to ameliorate human impacts; humans are loath to admit that overpopulation is a problem. However, you do not really define overshoot or more importantly what a population correction or collapse is. You argue that a collapse will occur without specific justification or degree and do not make a compelling argument, at least to a skeptic, that collapse is inevitable. You should rely on or develop insights from the numerous scientific studies of civilizations that have collapsed to make a compelling argument. There have been a lot of cries of wolf that play into the arguments of the pro-growth and pro=development proponents. Produce the wolf or stop crying.   

 

Beyond failing to clearly articulate what a collapse is and why we should believe one will occur within some timeframe, my biggest problem is the rhetoric. You often do not directly state your point but make snide and cynical comments that the reader is assumed to agree with. A few of these is fine, the number in this paper is not.  Within paragraphs you often jump to tangents. These are often important points, but they are not developed and break up the flow and key message of the paragraph.  The result is your points are not well developed and the reader, especially a skeptical or noncompliant reader, is not led to a well-supported conclusion. 

 

I do think this could be a valuable contribution but it could be made much better with rigorous editing. That includes a total rewrite and reorganization or at a minimum a serious reorganization of each section accomplished by reorganizing and refocusing paragraphs.  

 

It is also not clear that the condescending/patronizing rhetoric is useful or positive.  

 

 

Rees 2023. Population and Sustainability 7(1). Makes a clearer and more compelling set of similar arguments. 

 

 

Early in the paper, it would be good to define overshoot. You need to be clear what you mean by overshoot: simply human overpopulation, human demand in excess of environmental supply, or population overshoot and collapse (or something else).  Relying on some sorcerer to proclaim and unsupported truism is not sufficient.  

 

 

 

Comments on specific sections

 

Abstract:

OK

 

1.   Introduction:

 

OK

 

2. Overshoot

 

Line 64: Not really – still growing exponentially and consuming resource. Seems evident not hidden. 

 

Lines 72-73: This is a good point but this is tangential to what preceded it. Develop this elsewhere or finish the prior line of reasoning. 

 

Line 91: H. sapiens italics

 

A consideration you do not address is global vs local human populations – and earlier populations/civilization were less connected (isolated) and various went extinct.  Now there is much more interconnection – how does this affect any collapse?  Global or regional or local? 

 

Lines 120-134: good

 

Lines 136-149: Good

 

Line 156: Reduced rather than smaller? 

 

Lines 159-165: Good key point 

 

Lines 169-173: This is a tangent here.  It is a good point worthy of a paragraph but set it up. 

 

Line 180: Hyperbole

 

Lines 188-196: Whole new topic.  Why is overshoot ignored – set this up better

 

3. Population connection

 

Lines 215-222: Important point, develop further

 

Line 223: Many readers will not be economists so clarify or elaborate on “at the margin”.

 

Lines 244-245: Rather than pose a question here, say what you mean.  The current population level has degraded the environment and reduced carrying capacity and will continue to degrade and continued population increases will further reduce carrying capacity.  Note that from a human population alone standpoint it is not clear that that leads directly to collapse.  

 

Lines 270-271: Don’t use parenthetical sentences; drop the parentheses. 

 

Line 278: curve was essentially flat

 

Line 290: load – this is a good point but pick a consistent term and stick with it.  You should set this concept up. Define human impact or load. 

 

Figure 1:  This is a useful figure. The legend is problematic. The snide commentary that “what goes up must come down” is not needed and the population bomb assembly (again, cute rhetoric and a nice play on words that might be justifiable) point is worthy of a paragraph in the text. But it does not belong in the figure legend.  

 

 

4. Energy gradients:

 

Line 307: what previous main paragraph? This is not apparent to me. It is not lines 248-255.  Do you mean the legend? That is not a paragraph.

 

Line 309: essentially the product

 

Lines 308-311: this is based on millions to billions of years or organic matter accumulation – you should add this point. 

 

Lines 333-337: You should set up GDP as a proxy for resource use earlier. This is an important concept but you just toss it out and move on.  See https://steadystate.org/using-gdp-to-estimate-the-limits-to-growth/?blm_aid=125075

 

Line 342: Why introduce FF abbreviation here?  Either start on line 309 and use in most instances or drop it. Why is it not used on lines 346, 361 and 362. 

 

Lines 350-357: this is an OK point but it is a tangent from the beginning of the paragraph. Do you really need and want to get into dissipative structures?  You really do not further develop that concept so why put it out there?  It is just another tangent not essential to your argument.  

 

Lines 372-376: obtuse. Reword to make point directly

 

Note, you do not mention fertilizer – N is a key fossil fuel based enabler of population growth.  But, we are running out of P. I think these are central to your argument. 

 

Also, there is a finite limit on fossil fuels, the resource that fueled the population bomb – certainly costs of extraction and health/environmental costs will increase.  It seems this constraint should also be mentioned. I now see you have some of this in the references 45 and 46 as footnotes. My understanding is this is not humanities or social science journal and footnotes are not part of the References.  Move key info here to the text and stick to references (peer reviewed literature primarily) in the references. 

 

Line 384: via what mechanism?  Disease, social unrest and war, lack of food?

 

5. Overshoot:

Lines 392-393: Seems like work by Daly, Czech or Washington would be useful to cite here.  Ref 53 is OK for this statement but 

 

Line 397: Ref 54 is weak for this argument. News articles and opinion pieces are not good sources especially for this type of state. Delete this ref (and most of the non peer reviewed articles you cite unless they are referencing factual information not available elsewhere) and cite the actual work.  

 

Lines 407-413: More consideration of time scale should be given here. 2030 is 7 years – is that a realistic timeframe – what if the target is 2035 or 2040?  And, what is minimal about 45% - or is that a target to mitigate climate impacts?  

 

Lines 422-438: What are the tracks?  Set this up or define first then go off on a commentary.  Track 1 is subsidizing FFs and Track 2  is (I think) a slow transition to renewable energy.   The reader should not have to second guess or need to read the last sentence of the paragraph to know what you are talking about. 

 

Lines 440-442: I get the point but this has no place in a serious academic paper. Drop it or rewrite it. 

 

Lines 444-466: There are good points in here but it seems these could be made more clearly and concisely. Your point is that systems to capture renewable energy are themselves not renewable, they energy and environmentally intensive to produce, have finite life times and once are expensive and environmentally hazardous to recycle and often rely on FF for production and disposal. Give examples of actual energy input to produce solar panels, batteries, or wind turbines, needed mineral extraction and environmental impact to produce them and expenditures to decommission or recycle them. 

 

Line 470: very little chance?  Drop either reach or achieve – or rewrite so it is grammatically correct. 

 

Lines 490-502: Valid point but rather than citing another opinion article (which does have some good facts but you are not citing them) it would be more useful cite studies that have directly tied population, GDP or other metrics to water quality, water quantity, habitat and diversity loss and extinction. Then you would be make a clear and logical argument. 

 

It is a bit surprising that you make the population collapse argument without much of a mechanism or more importantly citing anthropological work that purports to show civilization collapse due to overpopulation or resource limitation (e.g., Diamond, various cases, or the numerous even recent studies examining the Maya). But you need to make a compelling link because a large swath of humanity is going to say we have been crying wolf since Malthus, and then Ehrlich, and now Ripple.  We were running out of oil until we started fracking – so some invention will come along.  You have a steep hill of human hubris to overcome and you need clear and compelling arguments to make your point not more cynical arrogance. 

 

Note, Reference 75 is terrible. Use Wikipedia but don’t cite it, give a proper reference to Toynbee and cite some real science papers in addition to Tainter and Diamond (and you could cite a bunch of Diamond works).  I do think you need more contemporary and rigorous work than Toynbee to make this point.  

 

Lines 518-520: I suspect some sociologists have studied this; perhaps you could find some references.  

 

6. Summary:

Line 565-566: Keep in mind there are many civilizations and even under your scenario many could persist.  Perhaps part of the question is which?  

 

Ref 83: the link is bad – you dropped an i. This is one reason purely citing web sites is a disaster. The web is transitory, sites die, code changes. Bad without a hard copy repository or a government backed repository.  In any event O’Sullivan has a more recent article that updates this. It would be nice if this info were in a better more stable source.  

 

What is your timeline of collapse?  2080? 2045? 3535?  

 

 

Line 582-583: One should not need to read the references to know that US$3.65 poverty line is $3.65 per day (not per hour or per week or per person). 

 

Line 586: What is H. (non)sapiens?  

 

Line 590: This should not be parenthetical – and clearly state this sentence.  591-596: Maybe and a lot of other options.  

 

Lines 597-601: You really have not made a compelling case for this.  And, which populations?  I get that your title compels you to this as a concluding paragraph but it is among your weakest arguments and a weak conclusion. You should rethink the key points of your conclusion. 

 

 

Lines 602-648 are supposed to be filled in with appropriate information or deleted. Do one or the other.  

 

 

References:

I did not check carefully but this is treated more like footnotes than standard list of references. Footnotes should not be in the references, this is not a humanities journal.  Even when you cite references you have footnote style text (e.g., references 1, 5, 18, 22 and on an on). Some are purely footnotes (e.g., references 35, 36, 45, 46 etc.). In addition some references are two or three references – there should only be 1 reference per number and each reference (see below) should only have one number.  

 

Why is ref 23 not ref 3?  It is ref 3. Drop 23 and cite 3 in paper. Ref 28 and 34 are the same. I suspect there are many references like this.   

 

In addition to better acknowledgment of Daly, Czech and Washington, Ripple and the Scientists warning to humanity is probably worth citing.  https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229

 

Also Crist et al. 2017. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aal2011

See above comments regarding rhetoric, tangents and making compelling arguments. The grammar is fine, but the paper needs lots of editing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is one of the best articles I have so far read on The Human-Nature conflicts and over-exploitation of earth's resources in the light of technology advances. Authors have made all efforts to review every aspect of Human exponential  growth circumventing the earth's carrying capacity,  expansionism, technology development, competitive over-exploitation of resources, loss of biodiversity, and development with destruction and probability of a major population correction. The article is a very nice piece of information for every one concerned and non-concerned. I recommend its publication with some very minor changes:

1. The statement in the lines 41- 43  ensures the end result which may not be realized. I think this should be moderated.

2. Line 6; H. sapiens---Homo sapiens

3. Line 80: that--delete

4. line 91, 132, 153, 301: H. sapiens--italics 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your perceptive comments and attention to detail.  I have made all your suggested corrections.

1. The statement in the lines 41- 43  ensures the end result which may not be realized. I think this should be moderated. [Done]
2. Line 6; H. sapiens---Homo sapiens [Done]
3. Line 80: that--delete [Done]
4. line 91, 132, 153, 301: H. sapiens--italics [Done]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

Manuscript is corrected based on comments

It is ok

Author Response

Thank you for your earlier extensive comments -- very helpful -- and your flexibility. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I reviewed a previous version of this manuscript and you addressed a number of my concerns.  I still find he manuscript to be wordy with hyperbole but you make some important points.  Below are a few items to consider for a final version.  

Lines 229-231: Good

Line 249: wording - "important that policy analysts  ...."   or "for policy analysts and politicians to fully "

Lines 273-275: drop parentheses

Line 511: the less stringent 20 ...that is what you mean?

Lines 575-585: This is redundant with previous.  It would take some thinking to streamline this and the previous coverage of this topic.  

There is some redundancy here - I think it was partly added with the revision.  The story is clearly but ideally it wouldn't repeat.  At least give it some thought.  

Page 13: summary but some wording is repetitious/redudant.  

Line 659: What is uncertain is... or It is uncertain whether ... 

 

Overall you do a better job of making your argument, though you still likely will not convince the less receptive.  

 

In general the English is good but little details need to be watched - a quick review by a good editor should catch final errors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf