Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[Cutlass]

It's a problem. But it's a tough one to solve. The most productive people use far more resources than the less productive. But the less productive are having many more children. To the point where in many less developed nations the least productive people are devastating their local environment in just the basic pursuit of survival.

I think that if we really tried we could have a high standard of living for the people in the developed nations with a far more sustainable rate of resource usage. But for the people in less developed nations, we need a lower birth rate and higher levels of education and development.

The catch 22 is that the poor and uneducated that are dependent on direct primary industry for subsistence do not limit their reproduction because of lack of access, lack of knowledge, and lack of choices. But the people who do have access and education to make their choices also use much more in the way of resources per person.

 

[hossam]

the overpopulation problem varies from country to country, and is not really a global issue yet.

 

[luiz]

The world is too empty.

 

[warpus]

It is a global issue, hossam, just look at all the emi/immigration that is going on.

I'm not sure how many people this planet can support, but we're pushing it. Even if it can support 10 billion (for example), it doesn't mean that we should fill it up to the rim with that amount. That'd be just silly.

 

[sysyphus]

the overpopulation problem varies from country to country, and is not really a global issue yet.

It is though. The stresses in overpopulated areas have wide reaching impact.

 

[scherbchen]

It is though. The stresses in overpopulated areas have wide reaching impact.

I honestly do not believe that I concur though I might be blind on this one. take a place like Germany, for example. somebody might very well prove me wrong (as I did not check the numbers and am running on 15 year old data here I might have messed it up along the way to boot) but we throw a ton of our food away in order to keep agriculture a viable option. we are dependant on foreign oil and gas, that goes without saying, but I was under the impression that we exported and used a fair deal of vital resources as well. this is hard to measure but are we supporting our population in the same degree as far as imports/exports go?

 

[GoodGame]

Theoretically, there's always room, but the practical problem is adapting human living, so that in sum we don't risk breaking the carrying capacity of the environment (which presumably we don't know the exact limit, nor if we're near breaking it).

 

[azzaman333]

If we ever get too many people on Earth, we can just start eating each other til the problem is no more.

 

[Bllasae]

"There is such a thing as "too many people", but we won't reach that number because it's so high. "
Srsly? We've already reached and gone past the number that Earth can support for much longer.

 

[LucyDuke]

"Too many" people is the amount at which the earth can't sustain that many, and although I have no idea what that number is, we need to make sure we use what we have wisely and try a little harder not to waste what we have.

I've seen some very convincing arguments that that number is much, much lower than six bllion.

really has to be country-specific imho...

I am asking in reference to the planet as a whole. Clearly Haiti is currently overpopulated, and clearly the USA is currently underpopulated, in reference to how many human beings that land area can sustain (at a basic level of subsistence, anyway). The planet as a whole can be considered too, since ultimately political boundaries don't mean squat to nature.

"There is such a thing as "too many people", but we won't reach that number because it's so high. "
Srsly? We've already reached and gone past the number that Earth can support for much longer.

Take it up with rt. I agree with you!

 

[GoodGame]

"There is such a thing as "too many people", but we won't reach that number because it's so high. "
Srsly? We've already reached and gone past the number that Earth can support for much longer.

Where's your evidence? Or do you just not like population in the billions?

 

[hossam]

I've seen some very convincing arguments that that number is much, much lower than six bllion.

apparently not, since you know...were still alive and perfectly well.

 

[Bllasae]

Where's your evidence? Or do you just not like population in the billions?

Both, but I learned about it last year.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Sweet Jesus, where was Narz the babykiller back when the controversial opinions thread was in town?

 

[Mowque]

Sweet Jesus, where was Narz the babykiller back when the controversial opinions thread was in town?

What happened to that thread? i liked it

 

[Narz]

Where's your evidence? Or do you just not like population in the billions?

It's been studied by biologists & ecologists, there are a range of estimates from 500 million to 8 or 9 billion (mostly around 3 billion as the median average) for Earth's long term sustainable carrying capacity. This isn't taking into account climate change either IIRC.

Sry, don't have any links right now.

You could send a PM to this guy (on another forum), it's kind of his pet specialty.

Sweet Jesus, where was Narz the babykiller back when the controversial opinions thread was in town?

I spent a week or two.... in RL! That God I'm now back in the warm safe arms of CivFanatics.

 

[Irish Caesar]

apparently not, since you know...were still alive and perfectly well.

Well, "support for a little while" and "sustain" are different... "sustain" implies that the planet could support that many indefinitely, and we're certainly not all alive and well these days.

We're also terrible at using what we have in a wise manner, so we need to be much more careful with our resources. And since we're probably burning coal right now to keep our internet machines running... we have a ways to go with that.

 

[Camikaze]

I propose mandatory euthanasia at retirement.

 

[Dachs]

I propose mandatory euthanasia at retirement.

Scary little bugger. Reductio ad absurdum?

 

[Camikaze]

I once proposed it in an essay on urban sprawl and overpopulation in Australia. For some reason, the marker seemed to avoid making a comment on it. But he's retired now.

Edit: I was quite bored at the time. Farce seemed a good way to entertain myself.