Environment and overpopulation

[JP226]

So i'm reading a paper on externalities, market failures where something is produced too much or too little. I'm focusing on is the enviromental degredation brought on by too many children. Too many kids means we need more resources and we consume more, deforestation, tainted water, loss of arable land, as is the case in Cali losing 50% of their most fertile land by 2040 due to overpopulation.

So the question I basically have is, i'm sure we can all agree that overpopulation is an issue and does mess things up, ie the third world, what would you do to fix it? Mandate a level of children? Castration? More war? Education? How do you get the population level down to a manageable, and more importantly constant rate where we will have just as many people today as tomorrow? Or if you don't like that, is overpopulation even a problem? The middle east and even Africa are better off now then they've ever been and they have many more people. Beyond that their is no link to overpopulation as a cause of poverty.

Just curious and want to hear some ideas. And I thought i'd bring a break to the whole america haters/ lovers threads. I'd put a link up but I'm using Jstor so I doubt many of you could access it. And it's fairly mathematical so i don't want to bore people too much.

[BoJaN]

So the question I basically have is, i'm sure we can all agree that overpopulation is an issue and does mess things up, ie the third world, what would you do to fix it? Mandate a level of children? Castration? More war? Education? How do you get the population level down to a manageable, and more importantly constant rate where we will have just as many people today as tomorrow? Or if you don't like that, is overpopulation even a problem? The middle east and even Africa are better off now then they've ever been and they have many more people. Beyond that their is no link to overpopulation as a cause of poverty.

Just curious and want to hear some ideas. And I thought i'd bring a break to the whole america haters/ lovers threads. I'd put a link up but I'm using Jstor so I doubt many of you could access it. And it's fairly mathematical so i don't want to bore people too much.

The middle east and even Africa are better off now then they've ever been and they have many more people.

WTF, no they aren't.

Anyways, from what I understand most nations need an increase in population, to maintain a steady economy. For instance, Japan is in a pickle since their birth rate is expected to decrease to an alarming rate, yet they won't increase their immigration.

At the same time the Capitalist world does not want to decrease the population. It helps them make more money, despite ****ing up everything in the future (typical capitalist trend). Which is ****ed up.

[Cincinattus]

I don't think you could do much in America to cap the number of children. Mandates with that effect would be unconstitutional.

Also, I agree with the theory that overpopulation isn't a global problem. There's plenty of land and room for expansion in places like Africa and the Mid East, it's just not livable right now due to disease, war, desertification, etc.

[JP226]

WTF, no they aren't.

Yes they are. Go live in Africa 100 years ago and tell me how great it is. It may suck compared to whereever you live but... it doesn't suck compared to 100 years ago.

There's plenty of land and room for expansion in places like Africa and the Mid East, it's just not livable right now due to disease, war, desertification, etc.

There is a term for looking at population density as a way of determining overpopulation, it's called the netherland's fallacy. Why, I know not. But the premise is given the numbers of people within a border, overpopulation is determined if whether or not there are enough resources within that border to maintain the population. Saudi Arabia for example, low density but poor resources.

and even if whn we come up with the tech to alleviate the stress, is that not just putting off the inevitable? is there a limit?

[humvee2800]

We have 7 billion people on earth, and reasonably we can support long term maybe 2 and a half billion to 3 billion. food wise sure we can support 5 or 6 billion for long term but resource wise we are way beyond our max.

[BoJaN]

Yes they are. Go live in Africa 100 years ago and tell me how great it is. It may suck compared to whereever you live but... it doesn't suck compared to 100 years ago.

Yes despite the threat of genocide, arab expansion, and the catastrophic threat of aids, they should be grateful from the outcome of colonization.

Though I could post the same as you and say - AFRICA WAS BETTER OFF 600 YEARS AGO THAN NOW.

[MyNameIsGreat]

Yes despite the threat of genocide, arab expansion, and the catastrophic threat of aids, they should be grateful from the outcome of colonization.

Though I could post the same as you and say - AFRICA WAS BETTER OFF 600 YEARS AGO THAN NOW.

I think you're missing his point.

[Petite Pete]

If we stipulate that overpopulation is a problem, then I favor war, particularly when waged on foul baby factories (women.) War is the greatest of tests, only those societies that are of the strongest, most disciplined will survive. None of this "meek shall inherit" nonsense. Only a society willing to go all the way deserves to live on this Earth.

[roy34543]

Well the thing about food-wise we can probably sustain up to 30 billion or so using genetically engineered food products and using a system of raising plants atop the ocean which i heard may theoretically be possible.
Metal / oil /whatever wise then its just going to be a natural decrease. No more people with 2000 dollar income per month people getting a 47 inch TV. Prices will rise naturally. and sure a few wars will be fought over it.
Theres also the whole wierd syndrome on how the world population in rich countries is stablizing itself. Women just dont feel like having children and the numer of abortions and people who dont want any children at all is rising.

The best thing you can do africa is just leave it be. If the western world hadnt interfered there in the first place it would still be peacefully having people living in tribal societies. But remember that america has roughly 250 million people if i remember correctly, the bulk of people (about 4 million or so?) exist only in places like africa and china and Asia , places that arent really developed yet.

[humvee2800]

Well the thing about food-wise we can probably sustain up to 30 billion or so using genetically engineered food products and using a system of raising plants atop the ocean which i heard may theoretically be possible.

You're making huge assumptions, tell me, if food is so easy to come by, why are we already experiencing shortages across the planet, and people are being forced to cut away forest to put in farms.

Metal / oil /whatever wise then its just going to be a natural decrease. No more people with 2000 dollar income per month people getting a 47 inch TV. Prices will rise naturally. and sure a few wars will be fought over it.
Theres also the whole wierd syndrome on how the world population in rich countries is stablizing itself. Women just dont feel like having children and the numer of abortions and people who dont want any children at all is rising.

So a continent with 350 million people will decrease slowly with 1 or 2 children per family, while continents with over a billion grow by 12 people per couple. The world is not stabilising, its been growing for thousands of years and now its running against the glass ceiling.

The best thing you can do africa is just leave it be. If the western world hadnt interfered there in the first place it would still be peacefully having people living in tribal societies.

HAHA, so you are one of those people who thinks africa was paradise before the europeans came eh?, the majority of the problems in Africa remain that of tribalism, before the europeans came they where fighting eachother just as vigorously as they are now.

But remember that america has roughly 250 million people if i remember correctly, the bulk of people (about 4 million or so?) exist only in places like africa and china and Asia , places that arent really developed yet.

So china is not developed yet? its social system is not nor is its middle class but one can not say it is not a developed or fastly developing nation, and I am not sure what you're point is, the majority of the world is made up of developing nations which are some of the most vigorous at burning through resources and food.

[Tiwaz]

You're making huge assumptions, tell me, if food is so easy to come by, why are we already experiencing shortages across the planet, and people are being forced to cut away forest to put in farms.

So china is not developed yet? its social system is not nor is its middle class but one can not say it is not a developed or fastly developing nation, and I am not sure what you're point is, the majority of the world is made up of developing nations which are some of the most vigorous at burning through resources and food.

Actually, food distribution is bit more of a problem than production. As it is, developed nations like Europe and USA have easily excesses in crops they produced.

This is due to more efficient agricultural industry. This lack of efficiency is same reason why developing or underdeveloped nations tend to be forced to methods which are not tenable in long term (cutting forest and burning it for fields).

But with growing populations, these inefficient methods get even more inefficient and force even greater use of short term solutions for food.

[Ma'ahes]

Actually, food distribution is bit more of a problem than production. As it is, developed nations like Europe and USA have easily excesses in crops they produced.

This is due to more efficient agricultural industry. This lack of efficiency is same reason why developing or underdeveloped nations tend to be forced to methods which are not tenable in long term (cutting forest and burning it for fields).

But with growing populations, these inefficient methods get even more inefficient and force even greater use of short term solutions for food.

Spot on! In fact, people seem to miss a very large problem with peak oil....how in the world will China (or the rest of the world for that matter) get food from the American heartland if there isn't enough oil to power the ships? Things might get a bit interesting.

Oh, but one might point out that we can use biofuels. Okay....but they use food to create. We're already seeing a spike in the price of grain due to the initiatives pouring subsidies into corn and grain biofuels, even though sugarcane is better. So, the price of bread rises, and more around the world go hungry.

As for the growing population, the US--with the exception of the millions of Central/South Americans pouring across the borders--is at a stable, non-growth rate of the population. Europe, minus the influx of immigration, is shrinking. The richer the nation, the less kids. Hell, look at a Japan--they're going to be facing a crisis of not enough workers due to so much of their population retiring. No, I think if India or China don't get rich enough to clean up their act we won't have to worry about the population, as they'll wind up killing themselves off with lead poisoning.

World population comes a distant third compared to warming (if you buy it) and peak oil. Hell, I'd even put nuclear war over world population. Sorry, I'm an evil bastard sometimes....

[roy34543]

You're making huge assumptions, tell me, if food is so easy to come by, why are we already experiencing shortages across the planet, and people are being forced to cut away forest to put in farms

Its all based on a theory that it would be possible to somehow grow crops over water, but even foodwise if we make the most of the earth and genetic engineering we can still support 9 billion people or so with proper rationing.

So a continent with 350 million people will decrease slowly with 1 or 2 children per family, while continents with over a billion grow by 12 people per couple. The world is not stabilising, its been growing for thousands of years and now its running against the glass ceiling.

Until they run out of food probably. Anyway its a wierd phenomenon and noone really knows how it works except by theories so i cant really say much about it. The basic theory is the more educated a populace becomes and the more diversions away from bed they have and access to abortion , the less they care about huge numbers of children.

HAHA, so you are one of those people who thinks africa was paradise before the europeans came eh?, the majority of the problems in Africa remain that of tribalism, before the europeans came they where fighting eachother just as vigorously as they are now.

Not really. I just dont think the africans would bloody care . Now that theyve advanced theyre going to misreable all the time . Besides by your logic them fighting would be a good thing.

So china is not developed yet? its social system is not nor is its middle class but one can not say it is not a developed or fastly developing nation, and I am not sure what you're point is, the majority of the world is made up of developing nations which are some of the most vigorous at burning through resources and food.

I have no point. Im just mentioning the fact that the majority of the world isnt using 3 TVs and 2 desktops and 9 cellphones per home. China and a lot of Asia arent really developed by American or european or the 6 earths needed to sustain this population standards.

[jankren]

The world need to have 'family size' program. Overpopulation is never good for anybody. In my country we used to have government funded 'two-children per family' program.

[gaius valerius]

You're actually wrong, Europe no longer produces extensive surplusses in its agriculture. In fact, we're facing a negative evolution. The biggest problem is 'biofuel' => each field used to grow crops for biofuel is a field less to farm food.

50/50%? This isn't an equation with preset data. There is no perfect division between populace and environment. If at all you could say the less ppl the better. Makes the world a lot more beautiful. You don't need 10 billion ppl to make sure your kind goes extinct. With just a couple of millions concentrated in one space our race would do just fine.

[Tiwaz]

You're actually wrong, Europe no longer produces extensive surplusses in its agriculture. In fact, we're facing a negative evolution. The biggest problem is 'biofuel' => each field used to grow crops for biofuel is a field less to farm food.

50/50%? This isn't an equation with preset data. There is no perfect division between populace and environment. If at all you could say the less ppl the better. Makes the world a lot more beautiful. You don't need 10 billion ppl to make sure your kind goes extinct. With just a couple of millions concentrated in one space our race would do just fine.

You know, it is due to attempts to reduce output. If EU turned the agrivalve on, there would be whole lot of stuff coming out from the fields.

[Icefrisco]

I dont think overpopulation is as big of a problem as it seems. I think the problem is how people respond to it. In NYC there are 8 million people yet, there are still very large parks including Central Park, the Hudson River is now clean enough to fish from, and there are now even beavers in the East River. Compare that to Florida. Florida responded to population growth by building huge houses(many are smaller then a typical NYC Brownstone) and gated communities that destroyed the everglades and the cypress forests. Even when faced with serious drought partially caused by environmental destruction, developers in Florida continue to build sideways instead of up. A typical Florida gated community can hold around 70 families and takes up around 25-30 acres of land. In New York city an apartment building can hold 70 families but take up 2-4 acres of land. See the effects? Florida is not the only place guilty of wasting land. New Yorkers are bordered by Long Island and northern New Jersey which both waste land in the same manner as Florida. Therefore, overpopulation is not the problem, the response of people is the problem.

[Pontifex Maximus]

So i'm reading a paper on externalities, market failures where something is produced too much or too little. I'm focusing on is the enviromental degredation brought on by too many children. Too many kids means we need more resources and we consume more, deforestation, tainted water, loss of arable land, as is the case in Cali losing 50% of their most fertile land by 2040 due to overpopulation.

So the question I basically have is, i'm sure we can all agree that overpopulation is an issue and does mess things up, ie the third world, what would you do to fix it? Mandate a level of children? Castration? More war? Education? How do you get the population level down to a manageable, and more importantly constant rate where we will have just as many people today as tomorrow? Or if you don't like that, is overpopulation even a problem? The middle east and even Africa are better off now then they've ever been and they have many more people. Beyond that their is no link to overpopulation as a cause of poverty.

Just curious and want to hear some ideas. And I thought i'd bring a break to the whole america haters/ lovers threads. I'd put a link up but I'm using Jstor so I doubt many of you could access it. And it's fairly mathematical so i don't want to bore people too much.

Let things run their course. If we run out of resources for all of us, then some of us will die as a result of that. Artificial birth control is out of the question. Abortion, Euthenasia, contraceptives, out of the question.

[roy34543]

yep the truth is that the people who suffer already are going to be the first to die.
The unemployed, the illegal immigrants, the people living off social service or that have no value to society (such as the mentally retarded or those under extreme chronic pain) and the poorer countries.

[Gelgoog]

my answer to overpopulation and starvation....soyolent green.

best sketch ever

Mabel Blaster: Good evening, and welcome to "Let's Talk and Talk and Talk and Talk and Talk About Movies". I'm your host, Mabel Blaster. My guest tonight is producer Jeremy Hoffman.

Jeremy Hoffman: Thank you, Miss Blaster.

Mabel Blaster: Please, call me Mabel!

Jeremy Hoffman: Okay.

Mabel Blaster: Now, Jeremy, you are known as the moving force behind the classic futuristic science-fiction movie "Soylent Green", in which people are given a mysterious food substance by the government.

Jeremy Hoffman: Yes, I'm very proud of "Soylent Green", which starred Charlton Heston. In fact, I brought a clip of the dramatic conclusion.

Mabel Blaster: Oh, great, let's take a look at it, then! The dramatic conclusion to "Soylent Green".

[ clip plays - Charlton Heston runs in front of a green-tint background and yells teary-eyed: ]

Charlton Heston: Soylent Green is made of people! People!

[ back to the talk show set ]

Mabel Blaster: Boy, it just gives you a chill to realize that Soylent Green is made of people, doesn't it?

Jeremy Hoffman: It does.

Mabel Blaster: Now, a couple of years later, you made a sequel to "Soylent Green"?

Jeremy Hoffman: Yes. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite as successful. That one was called "Soylent White".

Mabel Blaster: Oh. I understand we also have a clip from that film..

[ clip opens on two Executives typing, with huge stacks of typing paper behind them ]

Executive #1: You know, even in our modern and futuristic world, I'm surprised at how much paperwork there is.

Executive #2: Hmm.. me, too.. But at least we have a cheap and virtually inexhaustible supply of typing paper, now that it's made out of Soylent White.

Executive #1: Do you ever wonder what's in Soylent White?

Executive #2: No.

Executive #1: Me, neither.

Charlton Heston: Soylent White is made out of people! It's made out of people!

[ all of three of them scream in horror ]

[ back to the talk show set ]

Mabel Blaster: Well, that gave me a chill, too, but not quite as much.

Jeremy Hoffman: Well, I'd like to point out that "Soylent White" was not pure fantasy. We did talk to a scientist who told us that if you use the right bleach and enough wood pulp, you actually could make a kind of paper out of people.

Mabel Blaster: Oh.. Well, after "Soylent White", you made "Soylent Teal", in which people turned into popular colors of indoor house paints.

Jeremy Hoffman: Yeah, we did.

Mabel Blaster: And that was followed by a sequel that lost even more money?

Jeremy Hoffman: That would be "Soylent Cow Pies". I guess you could say that one was a flop.

Mabel Blaster: Here's a clip.

[ clip opens on a futuristic couple eating a dinner of Soylent Cow Pies ]

Future Man: What a grim world it is here in the year 2527, when the only thing the government gives us to eat is "SCP"

Future Woman: Well, at least it's hot.

Charlton Heston: Soylent Cow Pies are people! They're people!!

Future Woman: We though we were eating cow slop!!

Charlton Heston: Noooooo, it's people!!

[ all of three of them scream in horror ]

[ back to the talk show set ]

Mabel Blaster: I have to be totally honest - that didn't give me a chill at all.

Jeremy Hoffman: Uh-huh.. After that, we tried a comedy called "Soylent Stooges". I don't even want to discuss that one.

Mabel Blaster: Well, where next for the Soylent pictures?

Jeremy Hoffman: Well, we've decided to go back to what got us here in the first place, Mabel. We just finished production on "Soylent Green II", and I think we have a clip, Mabel..

[ clip plays - Charlton Heston runs in front of a green-tint background and yells teary-eyed: ]

Charlton Heston: Soylent Green is still made out of people! They didn't change the recipe like they said they were going to! It's still people!!

[ back to the talk show set ]

Mabel Blaster: Now, that gave me goosebumps!

Jeremy Hoffman: Yeah!

Mabel Blaster: Yeah! Thank you for joining us tonight, please stay tuned for "The Big Fat Stinking World of Nature". I'm Mabel Blaster.

[ fade ]