Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[Narz]

Yeah, unfortunately this is not so much a problem of ethnicity but culture as well. I'm not buying the arguments that a higher standard of living alone will sufficiently reduce birthrates-it does happen to coincide with a Western, non-religious culture though. Certain cultural groups (Latinos, for instance) and religions (many more conservative/fundamentalist) do have birthrates quite a bit above replacement. And unfortunately, these are all common in the third world - so I don't think simply increasing standard of living+education would cut it. Sure, it may get people to stop having 9, 10 kids, but 3 or 4 is still way too many. I guess we can hope this is wrong though.

As for the argument about the Earth's long-term carrying capacity, I also think those who are saying it's low (~1 billion or whatever you are proposing) are off. I've seen serious estimates ranging up to 10-12 billion with technology we have now (assuming good circumstances/no nuclear war; global warming and ecological damage are curveballs. But 1 billion is way too low). However, such a world population would most certainly have a lower standard of living - if we want to maintain what we've got and get poorer countries up to the same level of development I agree we could do with no more growth right now, some reduction is fine too.

Lastly, I'd say it's a fallacy that we can expect technology to keep up with our needs, despite the fact that this has been true in the past two centuries. The mid-20th century green revolution would have seemed miraculous from a 1900 standpoint - but we can't count on this type of thing in the next 100 years. Indeed, given facts like depletion of fossil fuels, I could almost guarantee this sort of thing won't happen. The only type of technology that would have major impact is along the lines of free energy/matter replication/ftl travel for colonization - basically impossible stuff with our understanding of physics. Colonizing space is no where close to solving our problems anytime soon (even if we found a habitable planet, at most we could launch a couple colony ships, which themselves may establish exponentially growing populations and all - but doesn't do anything about too many people on Earth). Given current technology we could keep up with more people with massive solar collection =>algae farm type situation - but this would still be a monumental societal shift and costly change. And the ultimate problem is uneven distribution of resources - no matter how many fancy toys the first world gets the starving populations are in places where ecological depletion is the worst and technology the most backwards.

Magic 8-ball says: Outlook not good...

Great post!

I'm skeptical of 10-12 billion people population estimates though, I'd like to check them out though if you have links.

 

[Ansar]

Just get them African countries developin :whip:

Demographic Transition will do the rest from there

 

[Narz]

ansar, you should really read the above post, how is Africa going to get richer when even the 1st world is getting poorer? Your faith is misplaced.

 

[Bill3000]

IIRC, current trends have it such that the Earth's total fertility rate are to fall below replacement levels by 2050. Population will still increase for a few generations further, but it would eventually stabilize and decline.

 

[LucyDuke]

Hilarious video, xarthaz.

 

[Narz]

IIRC, current trends have it such that the Earth's total fertility rate are to fall below replacement levels by 2050. Population will still increase for a few generations further, but it would eventually stabilize and decline.

That's all assuming prosperity continues to rise exponentially which is specious. Fertility rates will drop below replacement within two decades & not because of the demongraphic (haha, won't edit that typo as it's fitting ) transition either.

That's the silver lining of collapse. Look at the former USSR, they're below fertility due to the opposite of the demographic transition (governmental collapse). If we had to wait until the whole world was as rich as the average American we'd be truly ecologically ****ed.

 

[Bill3000]

That's all assuming prosperity continues to rise exponentially which is specious. Fertility rates will drop below replacement within two decades & not because of the demongraphic transition either.

It does not assume prosperity continues to rise exponentially. It is merely extrapolation based on the decline of fertility rates.

 

[Munch]

The solution to overpopulation is of course the rapture.

 

[Millman]

There are other issues equally important but I'll bite.

Yes, it is. If we can't find enough things to do for people they might get bored, indifferent, crazy and try things.

But ask yourself what is the real motivation for your survival? You want to enjoy something even if others don't agree with it.

A bigger problem is how to deal with the current problems we face in many area's of our life. Overpopulation being only one thing.

 

[Narz]

Earth population 'exceeds limits' says US science advisor

There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing "wild lands", and in particular water supplies.

Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: "There are probably already too many people on the planet."

 

[Yeekim]

It is THE problem of the planet, and I fail to see how the current trend could end without complete destruction of environment, massive extinction of species and worldwide humanitarian catastrophe...

 

[Ecofarm]

I said in another thread something to the extent that when people reach a certain standard of living they stop having kids, Western Europe being the perfect case, where native population is actually declining slighlty.

Step one: reduce death rate. This requires that people have access to basic minimal healthcare (like in the US, where entry into an emergency room demands service by law), a basic level of education for life-long preventative purposes and minimal pre-natal care (vitamins). In some cases, malnutrition (and even starvation and famine) must be addressed.

When people have a reasonable expectation that all of their children will survive to adulthood, they stop having 4+ kids. Of course, some cultures perpetuate high birth rates but it is for the most part a result of trying to have a decent chance of a couple children reaching adulthood.

The Demographic Transition

-----

Now, are there too many people?

That depends. If we all live like a middle-class African, then no. We could sustain that level of consumption per capita at 6 billion+. If we all live like USians, then we are very unsustainable. When China emerges as a consumer nation (which is likely to occur before labor and environmental laws deflate its economy), we will see just how unsustainable the US lifestyle is when expanded. 1 billion people starting to consume like USians will be devestating. 6+ billion people consuming like USians is right out - impossible.

So the question is not "can the world sustain 6 billion", but "at what level of consumption can we sustain 6 billion". If one is not happy lowering the standard of living very much, then we have too many people. We can mitigate damage by reducing the 'footprint' of a 1st world person, but that's not going to make 6billion sustainable at 1st world standards. So, we'll keep a bunch of people dirt-poor through neglect and outright exploitation, and get along for awhile...

-----

The seminal work on overpopulation (1968), The Population Bomb. It has flaws, but it was one of the first articulations of the problem.


-----

Vegetarian and organic diet is probably the most significant thing someone can do to mitigate their footprint.

Moving to Africa will kill two birds with one stone. It will reduce one's footprint to a tiny percent of it in the US and it will bring 1st world education to help empower the people (transition).

 

[Dragonlord]

"Need to start now"

Narz, Earthling et.al. have already stated my feelings pretty well and I'm too lazy to recapitulate it all.

The VERY FIRST STEPS IMHO should be to
- stop subsidizing births in the first world
- stop discouraging birth control in the developing countries

To the first, this rests on IMO outmoded nationalistic and even racist thinking. Take Germany, for instance: why the H are we pissing and moaning about a reduced birth rate and paying incentives to have more children? Sure, a rapidly reducing population brings demographic problems, but the solution is so simple: let qualified people from other countries immigrate - just do it rationally: let those immigrate who have needed skills, not primarily those who are 'persecuted' in their home countries.
Just accept that 'foreigners' are just as good as people born indigenously and there is no problem with low birth rates in the first world!

To the second: I want to uke: every time I read about the Pope and others discouraging use of condoms, never mind abortion. Totally irresponsible! We should be giving the 3rd world all help possible with contraception. Giving out free condoms would be one of the best possible investments!

As I say, these are only first steps - there is much more to be done, but the first thing is to stop outdated measures that actually increase population!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Overpopulation is a serious concern & has been for many decades now. Anyone who denies this is simply not educated on that matter..

O RLY? Or is it apparently self-correcting as developing countries actually develop?

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

 

[Ecofarm]

Self-levelling is not self-correcting if we are in excess of capacity at 1st world standards of living now.

The earth/ecosystem might be self-correcting but we're not going to like it.

GMO-induced epidemic ftl. (See: SARS)

Conventional agriculture epidemic ftl. (See: Mad-cow, mad-pig, and avian-flu) The cows, pigs and birds are pissed and they are gonna open a can of whoop-butt if we don't get cool.

Don't panic - go organic.

 

[Bill3000]

GMO-induced epidemic ftl. (See: SARS)

Mind explaining this? I don't see any literature on GMOs being found to have a casual link with SARS.

 

[Ecofarm]

All GM crops include a splice with anti-biotic resistence. It is how we seperate the cells that took the splice from those that did not; we add an [outdated] antibiotic to the petri-dish and keep the ones that live. Of course, a virus is capable of evolving past antibiotics of not only the type they are exposed to, but more generally. Ultimately, we allow opportunity for horizontal-gut-transition of anti-biotic properties to human viruses (as viruses incorporate DNA pieces randomly). The chance is very small, but the exposure to such possiblities is becoming unprecedented in history.

Basically, genetically engineered anti-biotic resistence + viruses = possible trouble.

It has to do with it being a coronavirus.

I'll see if I can find a reference.

I wrote a paper on April 28, 2003 entitled "Genetic Engineering Accidents and theOutbreak of Unknown Diseases". This paper is still available upon request. I do not havea web-site, but whoever is interested can e-mail me for a copy (e-mailtancccs@islandnet.com). This paper, based on much evidence, has pointed to a verysubstantial link between the epidemic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) andGenetically Modified Organism (GMO) soybeans. The paper was presented at aconference in southern California. I have received many ridicules and attacks for mytheory, but also some warm understanding...

paper, "SARS and Genetic Engineering", put out by Doctor Mae-Wan Ho andProfessor Joe Cummins of the Institute of Science in Society, has been published recently(2003). It can be found on the Internet at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SAGE.php. The title ofthis paper strongly suggests a link between SARS and genetic engineering. Several SARSviruses have been identified and studied. Various reports have confirmed that the virusesare suspected to be a part of mutation mechanism and this paper pointed out that the mostobvious type of such a mutation is recombination. Referring to the process ofrecombination, the authors of the paper ask, "Could genetic engineering have contributedinadvertently to creating the SARS virus?" If so, there should be investigations todetermine how genetic engineering could have contributed to creating such SARSviruses. It is time for the government to stop genetic manipulations around the world andto forbid the laboratories, be they academic, governmental or commercial, fromproducing accidents of recombination in the laboratories. Because without warning, andfor whatever good intentions they may have, they could accidentally release geneticengineering super-viruses into the world.It now has been determined that the SARS corona virus genome is an infectious,positive-stranded RNA. In a separate release entitled "SARS Virus Can Change QuicklyAnd Unpredictably, Analysis Indicates" from the University of Michigan, dated October2003 (internet location http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031003060535.htm), it is confirmed that the RNA gene in SARS corona virus (SARS-CoV) hasbeen damaged in the process of recombination with other genes. To quote ProfessorDavid Mindell's own words, who is one of the authors of this paper, "demonstration ofrecombination in the SARS-CoV lineage does indicate its potential for rapid,unpredictable evolutionary change, and this is a potentially important challenge for publichealth management and for drug and vaccine development."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...+SARS+caused+by+GMOs&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Article as PDF:
http://www.islandnet.com/~tancccs/papers/sars-gmo-en.pdf


Doctor Mae-Wan Ho and Professor Joe Cummins of the Institute of Science in Society are pretty wacko, but they're legitimate scientists.

Institute of Science and Society website:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

 

[Bill3000]

All GM crops include a splice with anti-biotic resistence. It is how we seperate the cells that took the splice from those that did not; we add an [outdated] antibiotic to the petri-dish and keep the ones that live. Of course, a virus is capable of evolving past antibiotics of not only the type they are exposed to, but more generally. Ultimately, we allow opportunity for horizontal-gut-transition of anti-biotic properties to human viruses (as viruses incorporate DNA pieces randomly). The chance is very small, but the exposure to such possiblities is becoming unprecedented in history.

Basically, genetically engineered anti-biotic resistence + viruses = possible trouble.

...
but antibiotics are used against bacteria, not viruses.

 

[Ecofarm]

Viruses randomly incorporate foreign DNA pieces. Especially coronaviruses? Perhaps coronaviruses are viruses that show excessive foreign DNA incorporation. I'm not sure about how it relates to cornoaviruses exactly (it's been awhile since I studied it specifically).

We are introducing antibiotic DNA sequences artificially (it is engineered into EVERY GMC) and at rates that exceed the past by factors of power through using GMCs. 80% of processed food in a grocery store has GMC ingrediants.

ISIS probably has a detailed article.

Sorry, I'm no longer exactly sure how it works out, but you can find a detailed explaination at ISIS.

You're right about viruses not being affected by antibiotics; we only prescribe antibiotics for flus because it helps our immune system focus on the virus by eliminating bacteria that require energy to fight as well.

GMCs could also contribute to a virus "transforming"(?) into a prion (mad cow is a prion). A prion is basically a (simplified?) virus with special protections/abilities.

There are interactions that even our foremost pathologic microbe scientists do not fully understand.


I edited/added links and quotes to references, above.

"it is confirmed that the RNA gene in SARS corona virus (SARS-CoV) hasbeen damaged in the process of recombination with other genes."

"rapid, unpredictable evolutionary change"

 

[Bill3000]

Viruses randomly incorporate foreign DNA pieces. Especially coronaviruses? Perhaps coronaaviruses are viruses that show excessive foreign DNA incorporation. I'm not sure about how it relates to cornoaviruses exactly (it's been awhile since I studied it specifically).

We are introducing antibiotic DNA sequences artificially (it is engineered into EVERY GMC) and at rates that exceed the past by factors of power through using GMCs. 80% of processed food in a grocery store has GMC ingrediants.

But what consequences would there be if coronaviruses gained antibiotic resistance genes, or their sequences? If they randomly incorporate foreign DNA pieces, then why does it matter if it's antibiotic resistance sequences instead of other sequences?

Assuming that the RNA was damaged in SARS via recombination, how can it be specifically casually linked to recombination with GE DNA sequences?