Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[Narz]

What kind of an idiot is that guy?

That must be a trick question because he doesn't sound like an idiot at all to me.

Someone needs to tell him that Europe has a population problem-- And it isn't a rapidly growing population.

Hearsay & popular opinion isn't science.

 

[Narz]

So you think that the US has peaked in terms of productive capacity? I'll take that bet, adjusted to 2008. In 2008, US GDP per capita was about $46,953.40, nominal. I'll bet that US GDP per capita will be higher than that number, inflation-adjusted, by 2012. What'll you put on the table?

What do you want to bet? Money bets are boring, lets make this interesting (we probably need to take this to PM).

 

[Bei1052]

That must be a trick question because he doesn't sound like an idiot at all to me.

So you mean someone who advocates either closing down the U.K.'s borders to immigrants (Which are the only reason the U.K. has a growing population) or installing a one-child policy/creating a system of non-transferable vouchers (To avoid a black market) in which the government pre-decides the number of children to be born in a year to not be an idiot? So what would he be, then? Because he's certainly not smart.

I'll stick to my earlier assessment. Dude is an idiot.

Hearsay & popular opinion isn't science.

It's not "hearsay" nor just "popular opinion". It's fact.

Very nearly every country in Europe has a sub-fertility rate, which means that there are not enough people being born to replace those who die out. The only reason Europe, as a whole, currently isn't in population decline is because of mass immigration from (Mainly) Muslim countries. Couple this with the fact that people in Europe tend to live longer, and you have a real problem. Europe, on the whole, is in love with social programs, which is all fine and dandy so long as you have a sufficient amount able bodied people of working age to pay into them when compared to those people who depend on them but don't pay into them. Of course, longer living people (Older persons don't typically work) coupled with fewer children means that the ratio of those non-workers who depend on said social programs increase faster than the number of people paying into those same programs, which put a tremendous strain on the workers. And unless you're willing to tax them out of the wazoo, then said social programs will collapse under their own weight. And if said social programs collapse, well... That'll be a fun day, indeed.

Link

The population of Europe has reached a peak of about 731 million people and now heads for decline. Over the coming decades, the pace of decline is expected to quicken to around 2 million fewer persons per year. Consequently, the population of Europe by mid-century is likely to be around 664 million, nearly 10 percent smaller than its current size. With this decline and continuing population growth in other regions, notably Africa and Asia, Europe's share of world population is expected to decline from 11 percent today to 7 percent by 2050...

...Notably, this mid-century figure of 664 million assumes an average net annual inflow of 800,000 immigrants as well as some increases in fertility rates over the coming decades. If immigration to Europe stopped altogether, its population in 2050 would be some 50 million less than projected. Moreover, if immigration ceased and current fertility levels remain unchanged, then the population of Europe would fall well below 600 million by mid-century...

...Two-thirds of the European countries view current fertility levels as too low and half of the countries have adopted policies to raise fertility, the most recent being Germany. Many European governments seek to address the underlying causes of low fertility and adopt polices to encourage couples to have more babies. Job security, maternity and paternity leave, childcare, after-school programs, cash grants and allowances, priority housing, flexible work schedules and part-time employment are incentives already adopted or seriously considered by governments...

...In addition to population decline, Europe's population continues to age, an issue of concern for most European governments. Whereas in 1950 the median age of the European population was 30 years, today it's 40 years. Europe is the world's oldest region, on average about 10 years older than Latin America and Asia and 20 years older than Africa. By 2050, Europe's median age is projected to reach 47 years...

...Also during the coming decades, Europe's population age structure will undergo a dramatic transformation, with marked declines in the working ages and corresponding increases in the population 65 years or older. The population aged 25-49, for example, is expected to decline by approximately 75 million and those aged 65 or older to increase by nearly 70 million by mid-century. In the absence of immigration, the projected declines in the working ages are more striking, with the population aged 25-49 declining by nearly 100 million, a 20 percent decline from today's level.

Although Europe receives many immigrants, today's numbers - an estimated net flow of some 1 million per year - are not enough to offset the demographic consequences of low birth rates. Europe would need to double its current annual level of net immigration to halt its population decline, triple the level to maintain the size of its current working-age population and quintuple the level to keep worker/elderly ratios at roughly today's levels...

...Economic growth, defense, pensions and health care are areas of major concern. Faced with demographic decline and rapid aging, many European governments adjust their migration policies with the aim to maintain or increase the size and quality of their workforces, which in turn is expected to reduce fiscal pressures on pensions and health care.

Others view Europe's population decline as a welcome development. Much of the public already feels that the continent is overcrowded and would prefer less density and congestion as well as lower levels of immigration, especially illegal migration. In addition, many analysts see future population decline as reducing the harmful effects of modern production and consumption patterns on the environment, especially with regard to global warming. Others, such as environmentalists and those who support sustainable development and population stabilization, question the widely held orthodoxy that an ever-increasing population is required to maintain economic vitality and societal well-being.

Notice the only people who rejoice? I did. It amazes me at how dumb some people can truly be. Who cares if future generations get crushed under the weight of disproportionate taxes or the fact the retirement age will need to be raised to at least 75 (See here) or the fact that a sharp decrease in the population will be followed by an equal decrease in the standard of living or the fact that most pension programs just might cease to be? So long as you can continue to hug your trees, it's all good.

Meanwhile, the U.S., Brazil, India and China will continue to pollute while being economically superior to Europe. And, to that, I can only .

 

[Kerozine]

Exactly.

Did anyone post this yet?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

[...]

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

[...]

He can't seriously be an advisor to the PM..

 

[Spitefire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaE0VWKYOpA

This would be bad for america if it is allowed to happen.

 

[Perfection]

Nope

 

[Narz]

So you mean someone who advocates either closing down the U.K.'s borders to immigrants (Which are the only reason the U.K. has a growing population) or installing a one-child policy/creating a system of non-transferable vouchers (To avoid a black market) in which the government pre-decides the number of children to be born in a year to not be an idiot? So what would he be, then? Because he's certainly not smart.

I'll stick to my earlier assessment. Dude is an idiot.

Ecological concerns > temporary social/demographic/economic concerns.

The dude is seeing the big picture & you're not. Most people are in the same boat as you, which is why I believe we're screwed.

Overpopulation is taboo. It's opponents arguing about "OMG, too many old people will destroy society" are missing the point sailing way over their heads (not denying that population decline will cause it's own issues just that the issues of potential underpopulation are far, far, far, far, far easier to deal with than it's opposite). It's like being in a boat that's clearly sinking but refusing to unload some of the passangers onshore because "then we won't have enough people to row". Better to have that issue that most of the crew drowning except the good swimmers, don't you think?

Also, re : Europe's population is declining nonsense. It's false. Unless you're racist & don't consider non-European's "people". Newsflash - immigrants are human & count as part of the population!

The only reason Europe, as a whole, currently isn't in population decline is because of mass immigration from (Mainly) Muslim countries. Couple this with the fact that people in Europe tend to live longer, and you have a real problem.

Retirement age rising a few years is better than 3 billion climate refugees, mass energy crises & dieoff of more than 50% of all species on Earth (eventually including man if we keep pushing it).

BTW, if your response is along the lines of "OMG, Al Gore conspiracy, it's all a lie, the Earth's natural systems are fine, infinite growth FTW" please write it in your diary (you can caption it "I'm smarter than ecologists! ") and not here. Thx in advance!

 

[Narz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaE0VWKYOpA

This would be bad for america if it is allowed to happen.

The right-wing conspiracy theorists need to make up their mind. On one hand that hate the idea of free health care for poor people, on the other they think giving people the option of euthanasia = Hitler . Do they want to dig into their pockets to keep vegetables shuffling around for 10 extra years for 100K a year? No? Then STFU! The stupid "OMG, the govt. wants to kill 80% of us under the guise of environmentalism which is a fraud, plus dudes, they're hiding oil which is abiotic anyway" conspiracy theories are the dumbest I have ever read about in my many years of reading about crazy belief systems.

The right to die should be a fundamental human one. The idea that the evil illuminati is encourage low birthrates is ********. You get tax incentives for more kids, more welfare, more food stamps, more social help. Euthanasia & abortion should clearly be legal & not there should be no social stigma about either.

Edit : mcplanetearth is on the list now!

 

[Winner]

Slightly off-topic, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who voted for population control and sustainable development are from Europe. Or, I should say, that's the option most European's are likely to pick.

But, anyway, like I said prior, there's no such thing as "overpopulation". Neither FAO, WHO or the UN is predicting any sort of cataclysmic change the result of population growth. It's just fear-mongering at it's worst (Or should I say finest?).

You chose to be an ignorant then, not that it is uncommon.

Practically all serious research tells us that if we continue to "mine" this planet at the current pace, we'll experience a collapse of the environment. It happened many, many, many times in the past to numerous civilizations, some of them were very advanced by contemporary standards. I just never happened on continental or global scale.

I don't give a crap about what the UN (hijacked by third world countries) or WHO (hijacked by narrow-minded economists) say, they're not being realistic and they know it.

According to Diamond, if just China attained Western standards of living (and thus consumption), the gross human impact on the environment would double. If all Third world countries attained Western standards with the current population (that is, if their population stopped growing as of now), the impact would increase ELEVEN-FOLD.

I should mention that the current impact is already too big, unsustainable in the long term. Do the math, if you are capable of using common sense.

 

[Winner]

^And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Europe is becoming fast irrelevant.

What kind of an idiot is that guy? The only way to reduce a population by 50%+ in a generation or two is to institute a one-child policy (i.e., cut the replacement rate to 1.00). I mean, really. Someone needs to tell him that Europe has a population problem-- And it isn't a rapidly growing population.

This is so foolish

I used to think that the fact that Europe's population has stopped growing (on its own) was bad. Now I know that it is our greatest advantage. With a stabilized population, we can focus on attaining a sustainable lifestyle, whereas the rest of the world will go to hell - Africa is already FUBAR and will collapse in the next 20-30 years, India is heading down the same road and Latin America/China are not much better (but there is still hope). US, Japan and a handful of other countries will probably make it too.

Earth's resources are not infinite - FACT. Earth is similar to an island, there are finite resources a population can utilize. A clever civilization never takes more than the island produces and it survives. Stupid civilization just takes whatever it wants and as a result, it destroys all forests, exhausts all soil and then collapses. Say hi to Easter Islanders for me... wait, oh that's right, only a handful of them survived the collapse they caused.

Humanity is living unsustainably, and the bad thing is that we can't just move to another island - this is the only one we have.

Meanwhile, the U.S., Brazil, India and China will continue to pollute while being economically superior to Europe. And, to that, I can only .

No - India will soon have a population so big that there would be no way in hell to feed it, much less to provide other luxuries of modern life. Brazil will destroy its natural riches and then collapse, if it doesn't adopt sensible environmental policies. The same applies to all countries.

History is full of examples that sacrificing sustainability to short-term economic growth is a suicidal policy. Read Diamond's Collapse first before you start spouting ignorant nonsense here.

Where are you from, BTW?

 

[Bei1052]

Ecological concerns > temporary social/demographic/economic concerns.

I still find it funny how you equate ecological concerns to a growing population. I mean, far more damage was done to the ecosystem during the industrial revolution then any time post the industrial revolution, even though the population has skyrocketed since the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th century. Ecological concerns are not dependant on the size of the population, but rather the policies that population enacts.

The dude is seeing the big picture & you're not. Most people are in the same boat as you, which is why I believe we're screwed.

Oh, yes. He surely sees the big picture, by adopting policies which will end up hurting future generations as well as fail to solve anything.

Overpopulation is taboo. It's opponents arguing about "OMG, too many old people will destroy society" are missing the point sailing way over their heads (not denying that population decline will cause it's own issues just that the issues of potential underpopulation are far, far, far, far, far easier to deal with than it's opposite).

Ummm... No. Strictly speaking, overpopulation tends to correct itself. Population decline (Caused by falling birth rates), however, does not. And this still ignores the fact that growing populations are not the cause of environmental degradation within themselves. This is most evident by the fact that some sparsely populated countries pollute more, per capita, than densely populated countries.

Arguing population reductions to protect the environment is like arguing there should be fewer cars on the road to lower the rate of accidents.

It's like being in a boat that's clearly sinking but refusing to unload some of the passangers onshore because "then we won't have enough people to row". Better to have that issue that most of the crew drowning except the good swimmers, don't you think?

Let me correct your example. It's like being on a boat which isn't sinking, yet throwing people overboard in order to prevent it from sinking in the future.

Also, re : Europe's population is declining nonsense. It's false. Unless you're racist & don't consider non-European's "people". Newsflash - immigrants are human & count as part of the population!

It's not "false". Do you seriously not understand the concept of "replacement rate"?

Retirement age rising a few years is better than 3 billion climate refugees, mass energy crises & dieoff of more than 50% of all species on Earth (eventually including man if we keep pushing it).

Because, you know, there's going to be 3 billion climate refugees, energy crises and massive global extinction sometime in the next-- I dunno'-- Century. Every credible agency is predicting as such.

...Oh wait.

BTW, if your response is along the lines of "OMG, Al Gore conspiracy, it's all a lie, the Earth's natural systems are fine, infinite growth FTW" please write it in your diary (you can caption it "I'm smarter than ecologists! ") and not here. Thx in advance!

Straw man much? When did I ever say that the earth has infinite resources? Go ahead and find said claim. Amuse me.

You chose to be an ignorant then, not that it is uncommon.

At the risk of playing the name-calling game, you're the one who's being ignorant.

Practically all serious research tells us that if we continue to "mine" this planet at the current pace, we'll experience a collapse of the environment. It happened many, many, many times in the past to numerous civilizations, some of them were very advanced by contemporary standards. I just never happened on continental or global scale.

The problem with your "argument", and I use that term lightly, is two-fold.

1.) None of the research shows that we're on the verge of environmental collapse. None. Let me say that again in case you didn't get it the first time: "None of the research shows that we're on the verge of environmental collapse. None." Should I have to repeat that a third time? I shouldn't.

2.) The Visigoths and Vandals sacked Rome once. Does that mean we need to garrison Rome in case they ever come back?

I don't give a crap about what the UN (hijacked by third world countries) or WHO (hijacked by narrow-minded economists) say, they're not being realistic and they know it.

How, exactly, do you argue with someone who discredits by and large what the U.N. Population Division, WHO and FAO all report in favor of their own personal-- And unsubstantiated-- Claims? The answer? You don't, because it's impossible.

According to Diamond, if just China attained Western standards of living (and thus consumption), the gross human impact on the environment would double. If all Third world countries attained Western standards with the current population (that is, if their population stopped growing as of now), the impact would increase ELEVEN-FOLD.

Of course-- As I've said this before-- Most Western countries live above their means, and consume far more then they need. If every country consumed only what it needed, we'd be able to feed-- AT LEAST-- Twice the current population (And, at absolute best, three to four times the current). But, I suppose it's better to cull the population and promote birth control/abortion instead of taking and using only what you need, right?

I should mention that the current impact is already too big, unsustainable in the long term. Do the math, if you are capable of using common sense.

I get tired of asking, but show me the source which claims that the current population is unsustainable. And I'm talking credible source. I'm getting fairly tired of all the unsubstantiated claims.

This is so foolish .

Not at all.

I used to think that the fact that Europe's population has stopped growing (on its own) was bad. Now I know that it is our greatest advantage. With a stabilized population, we can focus on attaining a sustainable lifestyle, whereas the rest of the world will go to hell - Africa is already FUBAR and will collapse in the next 20-30 years, India is heading down the same road and Latin America/China are not much better (but there is still hope). US, Japan and a handful of other countries will probably make it too.

... ... ...

I don't quite think the rest of the world will be "going to hell".

Out of the total land area in Africa, only a fraction is used for arable land. Using soil, land cover and climatic characteristics a FAO study has estimated the potential land area for rainfed crops, excluding built up areas and forests – neither of which would be available for agriculture. According to the study, the potential – if realised – would mean an increase ranging from 150 – 700% percent per region, with a total potential for the whole of Africa in 300 million hectares. Note that the actual arable land in 2003 is higher than the potential in a few countries, like Egypt, due to irrigation. Furthermore, a lot of Africa's problems stem from government mismanagement. For example, Ethiopa and Zimbabwe went from being self-sufficient in terms of food production to starvation, not because their population grew, but because the government stepped in and nationalized the farming industry. If the farming industry was ever denationalized, you'd see food production go way, way, way up.

India ranks second in total farm output and hasn't experienced drought or famine since the mid'ish 20th century, though it has seen a significant decrease in agricultural growth in recent years. Of course, it's important to note that the current slowdown in agricultural production is not due to environmental constraints nor a growing population, but rather socio-political ones. As of 2003/2004, only 52.6% of Indian farmlands were irrigated and those farms which were irrigated were poorly irrigated.

The sharp rise in foodgrain production during India’s Green Revolution of the 1970s enabled the country to achieve self-sufficiency in foodgrains and stave off the threat of famine. Agricultural intensification in the 1970s to 1980s saw an increased demand for rural labor that raised rural wages and, together with declining food prices, reduced rural poverty.

Sustained, although much slower, agricultural growth in the 1990s reduced rural poverty to 26.3 percent by 1999/00. Since then, however, the slowdown in agricultural growth has become a major cause for concern. India’s rice yields are one-third of China’s and about half of those in Vietnam and Indonesia. With the exception of sugarcane, potato and tea, the same is true for most other agricultural commodities.

The Government of India places high priority on reducing poverty by raising agricultural productivity. However, bold action from policymakers will be required to shift away from the existing subsidy-based regime that is no longer sustainable, to build a solid foundation for a highly productive, internationally competitive, and diversified agricultural sector.

The emphasis is mine. You can read all about it here. It also details water use. Anyway, I must kindly ask what the hell you're talking about when you say India is heading down the same road? It's been moving towards greater sustainability since the mid-20th century even amidst a rapidly growing population. Nowhere near the Doomsday scenario you think it is.

You can read up on South America here here. As far as China is concerned, it currently produces about 1/5 of the world's food (It's entirely self-sufficient) and is projected to remain so throughout the 21st century given China uses better irrigation techniques. This is due to the fact that even though they have a growing population despite the government's efforts to the contrary, advanced irrigation techniques will allow for greater agricultural productivity on less land, so the land currently being used for farming can be converted to other uses or used to produce even more food than is currently being used.

I'm too lazy to go on, but you get the point. The overpopulation mythists, as I like to call them, would rather focus on reducing the world's population instead of actually addressing the problem. Europe is trying to achieve sustainability by killing off its population. Developing countries try to achieve sustainability by embracing technology. Which is the genius and which is the fool?

Earth's resources are not infinite - FACT. Earth is similar to an island, there are finite resources a population can utilize. A clever civilization never takes more than the island produces and it survives. Stupid civilization just takes whatever it wants and as a result, it destroys all forests, exhausts all soil and then collapses. Say hi to Easter Islanders for me... wait, oh that's right, only a handful of them survived the collapse they caused.

No one said the earth's resources are infinite. I, and many other people like myself, have pointed out to you that the earth isn't "running out of resources", as you so put it. That is fearmongering, with no kind of credible backing. And this isn't even mentioning the fact that humans are the only species on the planet who create/resplinish resources and don't just take from the environment.

Humanity is living unsustainably, and the bad thing is that we can't just move to another island - this is the only one we have.

Two words: Prove it.

No - India will soon have a population so big that there would be no way in hell to feed it, much less to provide other luxuries of modern life.

See my response to the whole India thing above. This most definitely won't be happening anytime this century.

Brazil will destroy its natural riches and then collapse...

No, it won't. Not only has food production continued to outstrip growth (Much like in all countries), but there is no such thing as unfettered growth. The more developed a country becomes, the slower the growth of the population becomes. Brazil is in no danger of "destroying it's natural riches and then collapsing".

...if it doesn't adopt sensible environmental policies.

Not the self-culling of one's population, hopefully, as such a policy is beyond dumb.

History is full of examples that sacrificing sustainability to short-term economic growth is a suicidal policy. Read Diamond's Collapse first before you start spouting ignorant nonsense here.

1.) No one is talking about "sacrificing sustainability", since I have said not once, not twice, not even thrice, but four times now that the biggest "problem" is an unequal distribution of food, less than optimal use of technologies which would increase food output tenfold (Sometimes more) without using any more land than what is already used and government restrictions which cause very nearly all ecological problems. You're the one advocating cutting the population by ridiculous amounts, which not only doesn't solve anything, but also causes a hell of a lot of problems.

2.) Why should I? All you've done thus far is run around proclaiming how the sky is falling and how because one event happened in the past means it's going to happen today, even though there's no evidence stating as much.

3.) Please show me the society which survived through a policy of self-reduction.

Where are you from, BTW?

Florida.

 

[PiMan]

Food production is only one aspect of overpopulation.
Brazil stripping its natural resources, like the Amazon and many mineral resources. You said yourself, they aren't infinite, but you don't seem to be worried about them running out ever.

 

[Narz]

I still find it funny how you equate ecological concerns to a growing population. I mean, far more damage was done to the ecosystem during the industrial revolution then any time post the industrial revolution

That is not true in the least. You're just making things up without even trying to support them.

Let me correct your example. It's like being on a boat which isn't sinking, yet throwing people overboard in order to prevent it from sinking in the future.

Intelligent planning is murder ("throwing people overboard") now? Do you whip yourself for every sperm you shoot that doesn't impregnate someone? No where did I mebntion throwing anyone overboard, please don't put words in my mouth.

It's not "false". Do you seriously not understand the concept of "replacement rate"?

Immigrants don't count as replacements?

Because, you know, there's going to be 3 billion climate refugees, energy crises and massive global extinction sometime in the next-- I dunno'-- Century. Every credible agency is predicting as such.

Extinction this century is an extreme case (however if there is even a 1% chance of it clearly we should mobilize to make it 0%), the other examples (climate refugees, energy crisis, etc.) are not at all extreme.

When did I ever say that the earth has infinite resources?

You haven't said it in as many words but you scoff at the idea resources will ever run out.

 

[Winner]

The problem with your "argument", and I use that term lightly, is two-fold.

1.) None of the research shows that we're on the verge of environmental collapse. None. Let me say that again in case you didn't get it the first time: "None of the research shows that we're on the verge of environmental collapse. None." Should I have to repeat that a third time? I shouldn't.

The problem with you is that you're not listening (=reading).

Go to your nearest bookstore, buy Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond, read it, and then come back. The book has cured many people with attitudes similar to yours. You can cross-check his references if you want to be hardcore.

2.) The Visigoths and Vandals sacked Rome once. Does that mean we need to garrison Rome in case they ever come back?

No, but it means you need to learn what fallacy is.

If you drop few bacteria into a petri dish with a finite amount of nutrients, they're gonna multiply exponentially until they consume them all - then the colony dies out. I am sure that if the bacteria were intelligent, they'd have all reasons to be optimistic even as they would approach the rim of the dish - after all, they've been consuming as much as they pleased as far as they can remember and it was never a problem, so screw all the doomsayer bacteria scaring others that there is a danger looming on the horizon

Past human populations, especially the isolated ones, are both an example and a cautionary tale to us. Easter Islanders or ancient Maya were isolated populations, like the bacteria in a petri dish. They collapsed, because they were living beyond their means. Easter Islanders caused a massive deforestation of their island leading to soil erosion and a rapid drop in agricultural production and a lack of wood for fishing boat. In the resulting collapse of their society, more than 90% of the population died out before the first Europeans even came to that island.

In the case of Maya, it was overpopulation combined with deforestation of highland regions aggravated by climate change what caused one of the biggest pre-modern collapse of otherwise advanced society.

Diamond uses many other examples, including modern-day ones, identifies common factors and in the end, he applies them on the modern world. He explains concepts like the carrying capacity and the human impact on the environment.

---

So, after you read it, we can talk again. I am sure that your smug ignorant attitude will be gone by then.

How, exactly, do you argue with someone who discredits by and large what the U.N. Population Division, WHO and FAO all report in favor of their own personal-- And unsubstantiated-- Claims? The answer? You don't, because it's impossible.

UN etc. are political organization with a political agenda. UN won't say "Yes, overpopulation is a massive problem and the Third world countries need to take DRASTIC steps to stop the population explosion", because it would be eaten alive by all the Third world countries representatives.

Of course-- As I've said this before-- Most Western countries live above their means, and consume far more then they need. If every country consumed only what it needed, we'd be able to feed-- AT LEAST-- Twice the current population (And, at absolute best, three to four times the current). But, I suppose it's better to cull the population and promote birth control/abortion instead of taking and using only what you need, right?

Twice of the current population would be catastrophic and 3-4 times as much is just a plain fantasy based on your ignorant view that agricultural production can be sustained despite a massive deforestation and degradation of soils.

I get tired of asking, but show me the source which claims that the current population is unsustainable. And I'm talking credible source. I'm getting fairly tired of all the unsubstantiated claims.

I've done that twice already.

I don't quite think the rest of the world will be "going to hell".

Yes, it will. Rwanda certainly went to hell when overpopulation reached unbearable levels. Diamond dedicated a whole chapter to that genocide to document how overpopulation in Sub-Saharan Africa leads to ethnic tensions and eventually also genocidal conflicts.

Out of the total land area in Africa, only a fraction is used for arable land. Using soil, land cover and climatic characteristics a FAO study has estimated the potential land area for rainfed crops, excluding built up areas and forests – neither of which would be available for agriculture. According to the study, the potential – if realised – would mean an increase ranging from 150 – 700% percent per region, with a total potential for the whole of Africa in 300 million hectares. Note that the actual arable land in 2003 is higher than the potential in a few countries, like Egypt, due to irrigation. Furthermore, a lot of Africa's problems stem from government mismanagement. For example, Ethiopa and Zimbabwe went from being self-sufficient in terms of food production to starvation, not because their population grew, but because the government stepped in and nationalized the farming industry. If the farming industry was ever denationalized, you'd see food production go way, way, way up.

You're contradicting yourself. If a country went from self-sustainable agricultural production to famine-like situation, and at the same time the population of the country doubled or tripled, there is certainly a pattern only a blind person could ignore. That overpopulation causes all sorts of problems is nearly a truism:

1) Rapidly rising population creates all sorts of problems - the economy needs to grow rapidly in order to provide jobs and education to an ever growing number of people. In most Sub-Saharan African countries, the population has grown faster than the economy, which logically resulted in lower overall living standard and widespread poverty. Poverty in turn makes it rather hard to have a country that's well-managed and has a competent government, as poor populations are not usually known for being liberal democracy-friendly.

2) You can't increase the agricultural output forever, that's another fallacy. It makes much more sense to stabilize the population; it's rapid growth is the source of the problem. What people like you propose is a senseless race between agricultural output and rapidly growing number of people who need to be fed. The problem with this is that one day you simply can't increase the agricultural output anymore and this whole fallacious concept falls apart. And in any case, life is not just about food, and Africa has many other problems which are tied to overpopulation - lack of clean fresh water, tragic public health situation, decaying infrastructure, lack of investments, lack of stable political environment that would allow them to fix their problems. The more people are there, the poorer they get and the lesser chance there is to find a way out of this vicious circle.

3) The land area of Africa doesn't matter, as most of its soils are not suitable for the kind of agriculture that exists in Europe or the US. At the same time, the rapid deforestation of Africa leads to a degradation of the remaining soils and droughts. Diamond explains this in detail.

India ranks second in total farm output and hasn't experienced drought or famine since the mid'ish 20th century, though it has seen a significant decrease in agricultural growth in recent years.

Linked to a massive salination and other forms of destruction of arable land - this happens when you try to rapidly increase agricultural production in unsuitable areas.

Of course, it's important to note that the current slowdown in agricultural production is not due to environmental constraints nor a growing population, but rather socio-political ones. As of 2003/2004, only 52.6% of Indian farmlands were irrigated and those farms which were irrigated were poorly irrigated.

Extensive irrigation in Indian climate often causes build up of salts in the soil.

36% of irrigated land in India is now being damaged by salinization. This article explains how this happens.

The massive chemical pollution from fertilizers is another issue.

One past example of how an intensive unsustainable agriculture can ruin the land is the so-called "fertile crescent" - now a desert area.

The emphasis is mine. You can read all about it here. It also details water use. Anyway, I must kindly ask what the hell you're talking about when you say India is heading down the same road? It's been moving towards greater sustainability since the mid-20th century even amidst a rapidly growing population. Nowhere near the Doomsday scenario you think it is.

You can read up on South America here here. As far as China is concerned, it currently produces about 1/5 of the world's food (It's entirely self-sufficient) and is projected to remain so throughout the 21st century given China uses better irrigation techniques. This is due to the fact that even though they have a growing population despite the government's efforts to the contrary, advanced irrigation techniques will allow for greater agricultural productivity on less land, so the land currently being used for farming can be converted to other uses or used to produce even more food than is currently being used.

I'm too lazy to go on, but you get the point. The overpopulation mythists, as I like to call them, would rather focus on reducing the world's population instead of actually addressing the problem. Europe is trying to achieve sustainability by killing off its population. Developing countries try to achieve sustainability by embracing technology. Which is the genius and which is the fool?

Where are you getting this nonsense? Europe is not killing its population, it has achieved a stable demographic situation (like other highly developed countries, Japan is another example). US is slightly less developed in this respect, but it will gradually become stable too. Or at least it's present-day population will, immigration can affect this in a negative way.

Also, Europe is adopting technologies connected with sustainable development much faster than any of the countries you mentioned as examples (India? China? ). Coupled with a stable demographic situation, it gives us a head start - we don't have to deal with problems tied to rapidly growing population so we can fully focus on improving our environment.

I guess this logic eludes you. Anyway, there is a fat chapter about China in Diamond's book, and his assesment of the facts is pretty gloomy. One thing that GREATLY helped China to avert major disaster was the one-child policy which stopped Chinese population from booming into unmanagable numbers. So again, historical experience speaks against you.

No one said the earth's resources are infinite. I, and many other people like myself, have pointed out to you that the earth isn't "running out of resources", as you so put it. That is fearmongering, with no kind of credible backing. And this isn't even mentioning the fact that humans are the only species on the planet who create/resplinish resources and don't just take from the environment.

Earth actually ran out of resources already, relatively speaking. Human population is too big already, although there are huge regional imbalances. Population in some regions can become sustainable with relatively little effort, other regions are hopelessly doomed to a massive collapse in the next 30 years.

Two words: Prove it.

Three words: read the book.

See my response to the whole India thing above. This most definitely won't be happening anytime this century.

It most definitely will if the Indian government doesn't stop the demographic explosion. As the population grows, more soil is being rendered useless by salt and chemical damage. Pollution is bad enough already, the country is choking in trash, people in many region are getting poorer, not richer, and the social differences are just crazy. This is a recipe for a major social/economic/environmental disaster. Too bad India seems to be obsessed with military buildup and ignores it's much more serious problems.

No, it won't. Not only has food production continued to outstrip growth (Much like in all countries), but there is no such thing as unfettered growth. The more developed a country becomes, the slower the growth of the population becomes. Brazil is in no danger of "destroying it's natural riches and then collapsing".

Deforestation is getting faster, not slower.

Not the self-culling of one's population, hopefully, as such a policy is beyond dumb.

"Self-culling" - jeez this is so idiotic. Get a grip.

1.) No one is talking about "sacrificing sustainability", since I have said not once, not twice, not even thrice, but four times now that the biggest "problem" is an unequal distribution of food, less than optimal use of technologies which would increase food output tenfold (Sometimes more) without using any more land than what is already used and government restrictions which cause very nearly all ecological problems. You're the one advocating cutting the population by ridiculous amounts, which not only doesn't solve anything, but also causes a hell of a lot of problems.

2.) Why should I? All you've done thus far is run around proclaiming how the sky is falling and how because one event happened in the past means it's going to happen today, even though there's no evidence stating as much.

3.) Please show me the society which survived through a policy of self-reduction.

Christ, I am sick of answering all this when it is all clearly explained in the book I keep mentioning. Read it and stop asking dumb questions.

Japan and many pacific island nations survived thanks to a strict environemntal protection and a policy of birth control. Funny thing is that many pacific islands now face overpopulation because the European missionaries told them that birth control was wrong.

Stable population is a huge benefit, not a problem, because it is a prerequisite for sustainable development.

Florida.

Great, another place living totally unsustainably I was Afraid you were going to say Australia, because then I'd have to quote a whole chapter from the book explaining why Australia is heading towards an environmental disaster.

BTW, here's a map from our "altered maps" thread.

 

[PiMan]

I knew Australia had problems, but I didn't think they were as bad as that map suggests. Could you please elaborate/explain?

 

[Winner]

I knew Australia had problems, but I didn't think they were as bad as that map suggests. Could you please elaborate/explain?

Ask the author, find out who it was in the latest altered maps thread.

I guess it's based on Diamond's description of Australian problems.

 

[Camikaze]

It would have to do with the complete annihilation of the Murray-Darling system, and all farmland (which is still a reasonably major economic sector), combined with complete reliance on non-renewable commodities as exports. Banana republic-esque.

 

[Verbose]

Very nearly every country in Europe has a sub-fertility rate, which means that there are not enough people being born to replace those who die out. The only reason Europe, as a whole, currently isn't in population decline is because of mass immigration from (Mainly) Muslim countries. Couple this with the fact that people in Europe tend to live longer, and you have a real problem. Europe, on the whole, is in love with social programs, which is all fine and dandy so long as you have a sufficient amount able bodied people of working age to pay into them when compared to those people who depend on them but don't pay into them. Of course, longer living people (Older persons don't typically work) coupled with fewer children means that the ratio of those non-workers who depend on said social programs increase faster than the number of people paying into those same programs, which put a tremendous strain on the workers. And unless you're willing to tax them out of the wazoo, then said social programs will collapse under their own weight. And if said social programs collapse, well... That'll be a fun day, indeed.

Link

These are the Eurostat projections:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00002&plugin=1

Couple of points. Europe is after all a fairly big an varied place. If it's population decline we are looking at, it is set to occur mostly in those countries formerly stuck under the Soviet system. These countries have yet to become serious immigration countries, which potentially will even things out.

Immigration is after all a good thing. Neither the US of France are suffering from it. France has been in the situation of below replacement birth rates from a century and a half. Lots of Frenchmen around to cheese off Americans, they just by now almost majoritarily have at least some of their roots outside France. And recently they have come back up and are now above replacement rate, aside from the immigration. France has been leading the European demographic development since around 1800. Time will tell if they still are.

Actually, it doesn't seem a bad thing with all the accumulated European wealth and know how that this part of the world will be shopping for people just when there is increasing demand for places to go to make a better life for yourself. Could take some of the heat off the US.

Also, it's not as if the demographic explosion outside Europe is what it used to be. We are looking at the acceleration caused by an initial burst, but it's already slowing down. I mean, Bangladeshi reproduction rate as of 2009 is 2,8 children/woman, still ahead of replacement rate, but slowing, and fast. Some forecasts sets global population as eventually holding steady around 9 billion sometime after 2050. Africa will be the "late bloomer", but the population explosion has already occurred elsewhere. Odds are at least decent we should start planning for a relatively stable 9 billion people world. The present EU population will hold somewhere slightly above 500 million. The US has room to spare and might do a fair bit of growing.

And if it's Arabs, specifically, that worry people, most Arab nations are at a reproduction rate of between 1.91 (Tunisia, which incidentally is about the only Arab nation up until now doing good in national economy terms, without being oil-dependent) and 3. They're also slowing down.
http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=194;dataMax=96846$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=23;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

 

[Winner]

The problem is that it is impossible to pull the +-7 billion people out of poverty without overstraining the environment. Earth can barely sustain a billion of people on present-day 1st world living standards (I count whole Europe and Russia as 1st world). There is no way it could sustain 9 billion 1st world citizens. In other words: EVEN if the world population stopped growing RIGHT NOW, a mere increase in living standards in Third World countries would push us over the edge.

So, who's going to tell the Africans that they have to remain poor?

Seriously, African population boom is not going to stop anytime soon and the projections I've seen are scary. Africa is in an unique historical situation - the average standard of living in (subsaharan) Africa is decreasing since decolonization. If it's education and job opportunities what makes people reduce the number of children they bring to this world, what will stop the Africans? The traditional models hardly apply to Africa's situation.

I am afraid that the only thing that will stop the population explosion in Africa will be a continent-wide collapse, Congo/Rwanda style. It will start in a number of countries from which the instability will spread until the whole continent is engulfed in a wildfire of civil war, genocides, famine, epidemics etc. And from there, the instability can spread even to the 1st world countries, which will have to deal with insane numbers of refugees, who won't be allowed to enter.

EDIT: This speaks my mind:

 

[Verbose]

I am afraid that the only thing that will stop the population explosion in Africa will be a continent-wide collapse, Congo/Rwanda style. It will start in a number of countries from which the instability will spread until the whole continent is engulfed in a wildfire of civil war, genocides, famine, epidemics etc. And from there, the instability can spread even to the 1st world countries, which will have to deal with insane numbers of refugees, who won't be allowed to enter.

You are aware the exact same thing was being said about Asia in the 1960's? Back when Africa looked like on a good path, but Asia was supposed to become this hell-hole of mass starvation and population fluxes, since surely there would be no way in hell to managed the population increase that did after all occur.

But I agree that it will be no mean feat to tailor a global human imprint of 7-10 billion people or so sustaible. The trick however would seem to depend on increased wealth being invested in new technology and production systems.