Overpopulation

[Primo]

The discussion actually started in another thread, but I felt like it would be more appropriate if it gets its own thread.

There are too much humans already living on the earth. We survive only by destroying the very planet we live on. So yes, after the definition the earth is overpopulated. And Overpopulation will be our end, unless we find means to supply everyone without exploiting the earth, as this will come back to us someday.

Or, in Short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOi6v5DD_1M

My personal theory is that:

Overpopulation is relative. If the moon has 1 inhabitant, it is overpopulated, as there is no way of the 1 inhabitant supplying himself, his resources have to come from somewhere else - i.e. the moon. On the other hand, if the world would reach a total Population of 80 billion or even more, but everyone could be supplied with both energy and food without damaging the environment, it isn´t overpopulated.

At the moment our energy supply isn´t regenerative, the ways we use are profitable in short terms, but will come back to us in the long run. I don´t want to live with radioactive waste near my house, for example, or don´t want to have the Global warming serious effects on my life (should be clear what I mean with that, with all the Hysteria about it).

This is what I mean with "exploiting the earth". I won´t argue that at this very moment both food, water and energy supply are more than enough for anyone. But we simply avoid to solve the problem - the problem being that we continue to damage the very thing we are living on. If we would stop everything with bad effects on our world, we could never supply everyone - I´d personally guess we could maybe supply half of the population with the basic necessitys of survival, but I don´t know.

Energy supply isn´t secured in the long future, and damages our environment: Oil will be gone eventually (even tough that will really be long distant, and definitly not in the next - lets say - 40 years), and damages the environment. Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and produce Radioactivity and radioactive waste. I could go one about how other Power Plants use fossile resources, too.

Solar energy will probably be our main source of energy in the future, but the production of the solar panels damages the environment again.

So our only means of supplying ourselves with energy is at the same time cutting our own throat.

/Discuss

[T. Brutus]

As long as our global economy is capable of nourishing ca. 12 billion people, there are ony 7 billion and still millions starve every year, I think you cannot really call it overpopulation.

[Primo]

You have been a victim of the Malthusian pseudoscience.

First Myth: the greater the population, the greater the poverty OR the more children make families poorer.

The myth asserts that, because families have to spread the wealth around to cover the costs of education, food, clothing, etc then bigger families would be poorer. Although this is true, they fail to notice that children are a great form of income as well. In fact, children provide for their families in such a way that in many cases their families would starve. Children are indispensable because they can move to remote areas for jobs, they can work on farms and increase productivity, etc. And these children can do so at an early age in most third world countries so families don't have to support invest in them for long. For them it is the opposite: the more children THE BETTER! This is why they have children not the racist reasons i hear people spout from their uneducated brains such as "they are sex addicts" or that "they are blacks so it is normal", etc.

Or they say: "Damn Church for not allowing Condoms - If it would not be for the pope this wouldn´t be a problem!"
You are right, of course.

The same applies to nations. The higher the population the greater the labor force. This is good for the economy, especially in nations where pensions are insignificant or none existent. Even though the population in developing regions doubled between 1950 and 1985, this did not prevent many countries in those regions from raising overall living standards. One simply has to look at history to understand that population never drove poverty. During the middle ages, the population of Europe was much lower than that of the Arab world, yet it was much poorer.

This is why I don´t like the fact that we in Germany have a child/women rate of 1.6/1.7 children for one women. It leads to an overaged society.

The overall Malthusian argument is that if the poor had available contraception they would gladly use them and avoid getting pregnant. Sadly for Bill Gates and his Foundation, they will waste billions in pursuing this argument (which won't work). Here is why:

"Mamdani reported that only the rich in Manupur used birth control. The poorer the person he interviewed, the more that person needed many children simply to stay alive. He quotes a carpenter, “If I have sons, they will work outside, labor even as animals do, but save. While the rest work, one son will learn the new skills. And maybe we will even be able to get some machinery with the savings of the other sons. A rich man invests in his machines. We must invest in our children.””

They need children! Bill Gates will waste so much money in his project to lower population sizes in Africa by giving the poor such services. He will lose money because none of them want it. There is no demand for it and Bill Gates should know this.

Indeed.

The main reasons population has reduced in the developed economies is:
- education among women: Career is promoted as more important and so having kids reduces in importance
- more profitable and less stressful jobs: If poor families had better jobs then they wouldn't rely so much on their kids to feed their family.

In developed countrys children cost way more. They don´t bring in an income for the family, and the money from the state isn´t nearly enough to cover the costs. Financial penaltys (indirectly) are a big reason for the reduction of children.

Second Myth: Food Scarcity and Overpopulation
The myth goes by stating that world demand for food has outstripped world food supplies and this is resulting in increasing food prices. In the end, millions of people will start to starve unless we reduce population now.

Once again, history suggests otherwise. The idea that human population is not tied to food availability is quite ridiculous. The middle ages demonstrates that population growth occurred when there was an abundance of food, and declined when there was a lack of food. People are notthe stupid idiots Malthusians make them out to be. If an African family notices a lack of food they will question whether having a child is a good idea or not. However, Malthusians portray the poor as being incapable of planning their family sizes. the truth is the opposite, the poor plan their family sizes just like the rich. Starvation only occurred when abrupt shortages of food emerged because of plagues or because the food supply was cut. When earth reaches its food production limit the population will gradually halt in equilibrium. (supply and demand). The poor won't continue to reproduce because they are ignorant sex addicts.

In fact, there is NO food shortage at the moment. And those who starve in poor countries do not starve because of food shortages. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 78 percent of all malnourished children aged under five live in countries with food surpluses (1997). That means that even in nations where people are starving there are food surpluses. So why are people starving?

Wars, natural disasters and high food prices are to blame. According to the World Food Programme, record wars and poverty are the main reasons for starvation around the world. In other words, there is enough food available for everybody, many simply can't afford the current prices. Only those countries in war have food shortages, not because the land cannot support the population but because of devastation and ravaging.

"in purely quantitative terms, there is enough food available to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one in nearly seven people is going hungry. One in three children is underweight" - World Food Programme

The Institute for Food and Development claims that the world is not in a food scarcity problem and will not occur in the foreseeable future considering that much of the land that we could be used for agriculture is currently not in use. The report gives many examples, Africa being the most prominent. (i could give figures if people are interested)

"even emergency, or humanitarian aid...often ends up enriching U.S. grain companies while failing to reach the hungry"

Why has the price of food increased? Apart from wars and natural disasters the price of food has increased because of errenous policies such as biofuel production. Kevin Hasset of the American Enterprise Institute has bemoaned a World Bank study showing global food prices have risen 83 percent over the last three years; a period in which "almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 went for biofuel production in the U.S.".

But biofuels are not the main problem. Speculation in markets has being the main culprit:

"At a time when there has been no significant change in the global food supply or in the food demand, the average cost of buying food shot up 32 percent from June to December 2010, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)"

"Nothing but price speculation can explain wheat prices jumping 70 percent from June to December last year when global wheat stocks were stable, experts say"

"There is no food shortage in the world. Food is simply priced out of the reach of the world's poorest people" said Robert Fox of Oxfam Canada. "Hunger is not a food production problem. It is an income problem" Fox told IPS
"the conditions that created the 2007-08 price hike and food riots have not changed, he said. It is no suprise to see record-high food prices and riots again in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and elsewhere". Coincidentally, these places have resulted in protests and revolutions. Could food prices have an effect in population dissatisfaction with the regimes.

Need i go on?

My point is that we only can supply ourselves by destroying the environment. I am not sure how true this is if we go for food supply.

But it is obviously my fault, as my one-sentence statement that Overpopulation exists didn´t include why, so you went into all the trouble of arguing against the standard theory. Thanks for the long post and sorry for that.

As long as our global economy is capable of nourishing ca. 12 billion people, there are ony 7 billion and still millions starve every year, I think you cannot really call it overpopulation.

Thats pretty much my point. I am not arguing that we could, theoretically, supply everyone. I just say that we can only do that by damaging the environment. I am pretty sure that this is true for energy supply, but I don´t know about how agriculture affects the environment. But that methods like Slash-and-burn won´t do as a favor in the long run is pretty obvious to anyone.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Or they say: "Damn Church for not allowing Condoms - If it would not be for the pope this wouldn´t be a problem!"

I've never heard anyone blame any religious groups for overpopulation. Just blaming them for increasing the risk of HIV and other STI's being spread.



I don't really think that energy issues are ever going to have an effect of population growth. Nuclear power could do just fine in the present if it didn't have so much stigma attached (yes I know there are risks, but there's far more risks going without power), and in the long term, I think, as Nightmare Moon said, solar will end up being done on a massive scale. Nuclear fusion is also a posibility that could solve our energy problems. Access to clean water shouldn't be a problem (in theory) as we've got the technology to recycle it efficiently. The only real threat I see is agricultural output being too low. Now there might be enough food to feed everyone at the moment or there might not (I've got no idea, agriculture isn't my strong suit), but there's going to be a point at which our current output won't be able to sustain our population. In my opinion, the only real question regarding overpopulation is whether our agricultural output will continue to grow, or technological development in the field will grind to a halt.

[Phier]

I've never heard anyone blame any religious groups for overpopulation. Just blaming them for increasing the risk of HIV and other STI's being spread.

Read a paper a few weeks ago which showed high correlation with religiosity and family size. The question would be is it people who are inclined to have large families religious or does the religious beliefs lead to large families.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Read a paper a few weeks ago which showed high correlation with religiosity and family size. The question would be is it people who are inclined to have large families religious or does the religious beliefs lead to large families.

It's often quoted that ''USA's peculiar birth-rates''(in relationship to the rest of the Western World) have something to do with the religiosity of ''certain packs'' within it's society as well.

[ShockBlast]

Overpopulation is not one of Europe's problems,being under replenishing rate is and it's a big one.

I am more worried about Germany's population dive,if nothing is done to stimulte population growth Germany will take a sledgehammer to the face, a fall that could be as big as 12 million ,the population is getting older so we are look at a reduction around 20 - 30% in the workforce in the next decades.
I can't believe this hasn't been adressed.

BERLIN, Germany, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Germany’s downward spiral in population is no longer reversible, the country’s federal statistics office said Tuesday. The birthrate has dropped so low that immigration numbers cannot compensate.
“The fall in the population can no longer be stopped,” vice-president Walter Rademacher with the Federal Statistics Office said, reported Agence France-Presse.
Germany has the lowest birthrate in Europe, with an average of 1.36 children per woman. Despite government incentives to encourage larger families, the population is dropping rapidly and that trend will continue, with an expected loss of as much as 12 million by 2050. That would an about a 15 percent drop from the country’s current population of 82.4 million, the German news source Deutsche Welle reported today.
The low birthrate will cause the German population to age dramatically over the next 40 years—last year there were 144,000 more deaths than births, and that number could increase to 600,000 by 2050, the FSO forecast stated.
With a 22 percent reduction in the workforce and increasing costs for senior assistance and medical care, the drop in population is expected to have a radical impact on the nation’s economy, along with the welfare budget.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/nov/06110903

Scenario II is based on the fertility and mortality assumptions of the medium variant of the 1998
Revision of the United Nations, but without any migration to Germany after 1995. Compared to scenario
I, the total population would decrease much faster, from 81.7 million in 1995 to 58.8 million in 2050, a 28
per cent decrease for the total population. The population aged 15-64 years would decrease even faster:
from 55.8 million to 32.7 million, a 41 per cent loss. In the absence of any migration, the population aged
65 or older would increase to 18.7 million by the year 2050. As a result, the potential support ratio in
scenario II would decrease from 4.4 in 1995 to 1.8 in 2050.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...on/germany.pdf

I mean transforming a creater into a first class economy is easy yet having a stable population is not?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Read a paper a few weeks ago which showed high correlation with religiosity and family size. The question would be is it people who are inclined to have large families religious or does the religious beliefs lead to large families.

There's also other things that those things correlate with. Such as wealth and education. I think that you'll find that nations of poor people with poor quality (or non existent) education systems are more religious than the West, as well as having a tendency toward large families.

[Raubritter]

Overpopulation is a freaking myth createt by sick minded freaks such as Thomas Robert Malthus to create an excuse for suppress industrialisation and the creating of wealth. And i notice that very often those people who talk about "overpopulation" mostly come up with solutions like "These poor third world people shouldn't be allow to have children, they need more birth controll".
While in reality repopulation is going back, in europa families have 1.5 Children in average. There is no such thing as Overpopulation, earth could feed even 12 billion people and more, and this hole talking point is a playground for greenies and eco facists which look for an excuse to restrain human propagation to protect mother gaia against the evil influece of men and push their losy green economy propaganda which they knew it would lead back to feudalism and could never ever fit the demands of an industrial society.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Just some nice historical facts, except for the United States of America the rest of ''the developed world'' has already reached ''demographic limits'' of some sort, be it by replacement rates or a simple drop.

See this map on the ''Inequality corrected, Human Development Index''.



Dark Greens are very developed and have a global IHDI Index that surpasses the 0.750 mark(having ''near zero'' marks is a good thing because it means that there's not great disparity between the actual resources and opportunities of the population).

And all of them have already reached replacement rates or have simply dropped their population growth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08230.html



In short, we are not heading for a demographic collapse(due to overpopulation or labor insufficiency). All it takes is more development and equal opportunity for that development to turn into parents actually planning their kids.

If there are specific places that might explode in demographic collapse they are India or Africa, and in the latter's case they have a very high death-rate as well.

[Mr. Crow]

i love that image,

ecologically there is over population when the carrying capacity of a system is exceeded,

in such cases population growth rates become negative(the places that are below the line(i would place the line at 2.1 by the way.)),

we can thus conclude that there is over population in rich countries, because the resources needed by a prosperous person, are far greater, this limits the amount of children they can have, while there is always a place for another poor devil.

the thing is that this is not a problem whit the amount of people it is a problem with resources, as in they must be increased in order to higher the generation of new humans and reach a stable population tree. otherwise there may be serious economic problems in the future, that's why it is in the best interest of prosperous states to increase fertility rates(making it cheaper to live a middle class life).

[Claudius Gothicus]

i love that image,

ecologically there is over population when the carrying capacity of a system is exceeded,

Yes, but transportation and the Green Revolution, about 40 years ago, have already defeated Malthusian overpopulation.

in such cases population growth rates become negative(the places that are below the line(i would place the line at 2.1 by the way.)),

Why should the line be put at 2.1? the replacement rate is conclusively proven to be something along the lines of 2.33

we can thus conclude that there is over population in rich countries, because the resources needed by a prosperous person, are far greater, this limits the amount of children they can have, while there is always a place for another poor devil.

No, since we are living in a world system(geographically restrained systems are long gone since the introduction of massive transportation) the world is hardly overpopulated, and to make a case for OP in Developed Countries only would be fallacious since those are the countries that are currently NOT SUFFERING the direct effects of classic overpopulation(like resource scarcity, famine, disease, housing shortages or infighting and social instability derived from those).

If there's a reason for the existence of the Demographic-Economic Paradox it can be found on cultural motivations, the introduction of planned parenthood and low economic reward from having kids.

the thing is that this is not a problem whit the amount of people it is a problem with resources, as in they must be increased in order to higher the generation of new humans and reach a stable population tree. otherwise there may be serious economic problems in the future, that's why it is in the best interest of prosperous states to increase fertility rates(making it cheaper to live a middle class life).

Ok, I've just lost track in here.

[Mr. Crow]

Yes, but transportation and the Green Revolution, about 40 years ago, have already defeated Malthusian overpopulation.

who mentioned Malthusian overpopulation, i mentioned that a middle class life is expensive, in fact in developed countries replacement families are a treat to the way of life of your average middle classmen, meaning the most egalitarian most developed countries are way over their carrying capacity, yet there has been no Malthusian cataclysm.

Why should the line be put at 2.1? the replacement rate is conclusively proven to be something along the lines of 2.33

because of social mobility, growth of middle classes is not restricted to fertility rates, specially in better of countries. probably replacement rates are even lower than 2.1 but you are right i was talking my as off, i just meant to say they were lower than 2.33

No, since we are living in a world system(geographically restrained systems are long gone since the introduction of massive transportation) the world is hardly overpopulated, and to make a case for OP in Developed Countries only would be fallacious since those are the countries that are currently NOT SUFFERING the direct effects of classic overpopulation(like resource scarcity, famine, disease, housing shortages or infighting and social instability derived from those).

it has nothing to do with resource scarcity, it has to do with freedom and way of life, with job openings, free time, a for a first worlder each individual kid represents proportionally a greater treat to its way of life than to someone living in extreme poverty. therefore they are above their carrying capacity, thus their population is declining, slowly, but it is.

If there's a reason for the existence of the Demographic-Economic Paradox it can be found on cultural motivations, the introduction of planned parenthood and low economic reward from having kids..

exactly, culturally, wealthier people use broader niches than poor people, imagine it as if they were bears, a bear needs lots of resources therefore it feels constrained very easily, while a rat can have very high fertility rates after all each rat consumes a very minuscule amount food/time invested by the parent/etc..




punting it in another way, you are a bear, you spent a lot of time and food making a smaller copy of you, you are a middle class person, you spend a lot in financing your kids education, thus you can very easily reach overpopulation as you need more resources.

[DaVinci]

i love that image,

ecologically there is over population when the carrying capacity of a system is exceeded,

in such cases population growth rates become negative(the places that are below the line(i would place the line at 2.1 by the way.)),

we can thus conclude that there is over population in rich countries, because the resources needed by a prosperous person, are far greater, this limits the amount of children they can have, while there is always a place for another poor devil.

the thing is that this is not a problem whit the amount of people it is a problem with resources, as in they must be increased in order to higher the generation of new humans and reach a stable population tree. otherwise there may be serious economic problems in the future, that's why it is in the best interest of prosperous states to increase fertility rates(making it cheaper to live a middle class life).

Bold: Right, but you understand, that resources are not infinite available? As well recycling products/resources is limited.
Exception is just so-called renewable energies.

[Mr. Crow]

Bold: Right, but you understand, that resources are not infinite available? As well recycling products/resources is limited.
Exception is just so-called renewable energies.

well we have been using technology all this years to find more resources, and yes i get it, eventually resources in the universe are finite, even renewable energies, the question is, can we find enough resources to sustain our rising wants and improvements in our way of life?

but yea im in agreement

[DaVinci]

well we have been using technology all this years to find more resources, and yes i get it, eventually resources in the universe are finite, even renewable energies, the question is, can we find enough resources to sustain our rising wants and improvements in our way of life?

but yea im in agreement

I think, the majority knows, that our modern economies/societies are oil dependent.

Equal in which direction you look in your household, you'll see dozen products which are oil-based, also your cloth in parts at least, as example - go out of the house and it is the same.
As for the usual daily usage of oil-based materials (even not talking of transport, personal and economy traffic, which burns oil aka gas in masses, in german called Benzin or our households for the heating burns oil or gas en masse as well), the researchment is going to invent replacement-materials for daily-materials that are as of yet oil-based, but we are not at it now.

The age of oil is limited, even if the US and others find here and there some new fields, or can win new gas fields (under questioning circumstances, which can probably bring more problems than benefit).

Sun radiation, wind- and water-movement are pretty much unlimited, and if those aren't available anymore, then the world as we know it isn't anymore.
Earth-warmth is used as well, but is indeed not unlimited, as it is a byproduct of sun energy (sun radiation) in a way that earth-material and water is heated, and if used too much can get cooler so that "resource" gets reduced, if not applied sensible.

As we have already pointed out, real fresh water is also a problem, even if techs are developed which can provide fresh water from dirt or unusable water through technical processes - this is a very complex theme, as i mean to have mentioned already in the starting pages, short example, our seas as we have them now, are in relation to our weather/air conditions, which we as biological creatures (incl. all biological life on earth) experience and are conditioned to, aka climate. Climate change is another important point here. Besides the ongoing polution of our seas and rivers (and air). Water is used in our industrial product processes all the way, do you know for example how much water goes into your 250 gr. pork-piece, before you you eat it? Google after it.

If everything goes wrong, and the humans won't work together to enhance related conditions, some day wars will occur for the last usable resources, and i do not see that as apocalyptic blackprediction or bible's enddays, but as possible future. I just hope still, rationality will win over greed and selfishness before total happens.

[Phier]

Overpopulation is a myth which is a convenient excuse I find for liberal couples in the US who choose not to have kids to feel better about themselves for doing so. (feel free to look up the lowered fertility in liberal couples in the US, and yes I've had several tell me somehow they were making the world a better place by not having children)

When countries like France run a campaign for French people to have more children, you know overpopulation is not a real issue in the developed world.

Its an issue in the 3rd world because of the first world. Prior to Western 'help' overpopulation was not a problem, they had large families and large morality rates as expected in a culture with only primitive medicine and agriculture. Well meaning western powers come in with antibiotics and improved farming and suddenly their morality goes down but the society is still in "produce maximum children mode". In the west we had increased prosperity and a more gradual shift from the HUGE families to what is currently average. There we just gave them the medicine but they lack the prosperity or cultural attitude shift.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Overpopulation is a myth which is a convenient excuse I find for liberal couples in the US who choose not to have kids to feel better about themselves for doing so. (feel free to look up the lowered fertility in liberal couples in the US, and yes I've had several tell me somehow they were making the world a better place by not having children)

Probably the same couple who charge their "electric" car from a petrol generator every evening (which is less efficient than simply using a petrol engine).

[The spartan]

Overpopulation is a myth which is a convenient excuse I find for liberal couples in the US who choose not to have kids to feel better about themselves for doing so. (feel free to look up the lowered fertility in liberal couples in the US, and yes I've had several tell me somehow they were making the world a better place by not having children)

When countries like France run a campaign for French people to have more children, you know overpopulation is not a real issue in the developed world.

Its an issue in the 3rd world because of the first world. Prior to Western 'help' overpopulation was not a problem, they had large families and large morality rates as expected in a culture with only primitive medicine and agriculture. Well meaning western powers come in with antibiotics and improved farming and suddenly their morality goes down but the society is still in "produce maximum children mode". In the west we had increased prosperity and a more gradual shift from the HUGE families to what is currently average. There we just gave them the medicine but they lack the prosperity or cultural attitude shift.

Are you implying that an overpopulation of a species is not possible/do you know anything about environmental science?

[hellheaven1987]

Does not matter, since nature would always balance that out...