Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[Narz]

I'm not 'crying' racism. I merely pointed out through the use of a graph that your personal fears are shared by people who are fearful of immigration and how it might affect the voter balance, and why that is so. And it is quite similar to the fears that Israelis have about Palestinian growth rates. I'm not suggesting you feel the same way. You are apparently worried about completely different problems. Is that true?

Yes it's true. I don't see what race has to do with the issues I am raising (besides that overpopulation tends to exacerbate already existing tensions).

I haven't even presented a theory, much less a crackpot one. Nice straw man.

I used your model!

What problem is that? That a few more Hispanics will soon be able to vote?

There you go on the race kick again. I like Hispanics, ok? They make me feel tall.

Because that's only one I can see at this time. It certainly seems to me that we have the room and the natural resources to accomodate far more people than we have now.

Based on what though? It's easy to feel that way in the 1st world where Walmart's shelves are packed with goodies & even in this recession the idea that life as we know it could really change in a serious & irreversible way seems impossible.

Well, duh. But what does that have to do with the recent immigrant growth in the US, which is the only reason why the US population is currently expanding at all based on the negative growth rate of peopl who have been here longer than 1970? See the graph I posted for details.

I'm talking about WORLD issues, not domestic ones.

Only if you are completely ignoring all the facts from the TED video which I have already posted.

I've already got lots of movies online I'm wanting to watch, I can't watch every statistic twister pandering to TED audiences. If you'd like to sum up his presentation in a paragraph or two I'll happily respond to it.

So far, you have only been able to show that US population is increasing. That is a fact I don't think anybody would be foolish enough to question. Anybody with an almanac or access to the internet can easily determine that. However, you haven't been able to show how that is actually any sort of serious problem at this time. Can you?

I was merely refuting your "wealth always = less population" argument.

As to why US population growth is a serious problem, well, the US uses 25% of the world's energy & contributes 25% of the world's pollution, IIRC, so I'll let you add two & two as to why that's a problem.

If you really want to understand population issues you should find a better academic source than merely myself (or an Entertainment Design speaker).

Here's a decent book on the problems we could face if we continue to ignore the population issues. It's surprisingly readable for the kind of book it is.

 

[bender19]

I'd say it depends on the country. Australia has too many ppl so we are constantly short of water. Other countries may not have resource limitation issues.

Australia is the 3rd largest per capita consumer of water in the world, if we're short of water every person in the world is short of water. The excessive water consumption though is because we also export 2 thirds of agricultural production. So we don't have too many people, you might argue we support too many people.

 

[Winner]

"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

No, we should first stop subsidizing births in the third world. We are doing that by providing them a safety net every time their idiotic "let's breed like rabbits" policies backfire and they face a humanitarian catastrophe (famine, epidemics, genocide etc.).

I say we should stop giving the third world anything that alleviates the consequences of overpopulation. They want to multiplicate exponentially? Let the nature show them how stupid that is. Next time there is some huge famine, let's just sit, don't lift a finger and say "we told you so".

Next, we do offer aid and development assistance ONLY if they start doing something about the source of their problems - overpopulation. No blank cheques anymore.

As for the first world, we simply can't open the flood gates of immigration. It's not about racism or anything like that, but integration and assimilation takes time and it can't be done if we let too many people in too fast. Therefore, we need to at least keep our own population stable and fill the gaps between natality and mortality by accepting skilled immigrants as you propose.

- stop discouraging birth control in the developing countries

I agree 100%. It's just that they want to do it themselves first, it's not all fault of the Church. Non-chrisitan third world countries have the same problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are apparently worried about completely different problems. Is that true?

Yes, he's worried about very different problems. I can't even figure out how you leapt to the idea that he's some evil racist on the internet bemoaning immigrants. But way to tackle that bull by the horns.

Only if you are completely ignoring all the facts from the TED video which I have already posted.

He doesn't factor in ecological tipping points, or essential resource depletion. He's looking at previous trends and extrapolating them.

It's an excellent TED talk, with much reason for hope. But don't forget that a bacteria colony reaching the edge of a petri dish would have excellent historical cause for optimism as well.

 

[Narz]

It's an excellent TED talk, with much reason for hope. But don't forget that a bacteria colony reaching the edge of a petri dish would have excellent historical cause for optimism as well.

Well & succinctly put!

 

[TheLastOne36]

After reading Collapse, by jared diamond, i'm pretty sure that Overpopulation is going to be the thing that destroys us at the end, if we do not find a solution/control and decrease it.

 

[Winner]

After reading Collapse, by jared diamond, i'm pretty sure that Overpopulation is going to be the thing that destroys us at the end, if we do not find a solution/control and decrease it.

Ahhh, another believer

I must admit the book was a big eye-opener to me.

 

[LuckyAC]

Nope, developed nations have birth rates below replacement anyway - if anything, underpopulation will be the concern of the future.

 

[kuukkeli]

It's currently a problem but assuming that we (human race) manage to dodge major catastrophes for long enough technology will eventually overcome it.

 

[Winner]

It's currently a problem but assuming that we (human race) manage to dodge major catastrophes for long enough technology will eventually overcome it.

So far, new technology has always produced new problems. Hoping that we somehow develop a technology that solves our present problems without creating a new one is preposterous.

 

[El_Machinae]

Many technologies have been used to stave off starvation, but a number of those involved expanding our unsustainable consumption. Overfishing was a Malthusian concern, but then we just figured out how to overfish much deeper and from distant corners of the globe. But we never stopped overfishing.

 

[sourboy]

The way I see it, there's too many people. The way I think it should be fixed? Talk the warning labels off of everything and let nature fix it old school.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes it's true. I don't see what race has to do with the issues I am raising (besides that overpopulation tends to exacerbate already existing tensions).

Once again, most people who are complaining that the US population is growing too much are people with a clear anti-immigration agenda because alll the recent growth is due to immigration and the birth rate of the recent immigrants. The growth by people whose ancestors have been here longer than 40 years is actually decreasing at present, and will likely continue to do so.

And I certainly think there is still plenty of room for population growth in this country because our density is still so incredibly low: 177th in the world today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

There you go on the race kick again. I like Hispanics, ok? They make me feel tall.

See above again. I hope that's clear now.Try using the population growth of a country that actually has a fairly high density instead of one which is incredibly low. Bangladesh would be a much better case. Its population density is the 9th highest in the world, and it also has a fairly poor economy so you would expect that to be a real problem area. But according to the CIA World Factbook their growth rate is a mere 2%.

http://www.brockisd.net/Bouyer/atlas/factbook/geos/bg.html

Once again, look at that TED lecture I posted. The big population menace that all the environmentalists were claiming was an inevitability only a few decades ago has largely gone by the wayside. Greater economic prosperity, education, and greater access to birth control are naturally causing these countries to now put on the brakes all by themselves. And now they aren't all that much different than any European country in the average size of families and other indicators.

I'm talking about WORLD issues, not domestic ones.

Then I would strongly suggest you don't use a graph of US population growth to try to make you point...

I've already got lots of movies online I'm wanting to watch, I can't watch every statistic twister pandering to TED audiences. If you'd like to sum up his presentation in a paragraph or two I'll happily respond to it..

It can't be done. Take 5 minutes to watch it if you really want to discuss this issue based on facts instead of perceptions from decades ago.

I was merely refuting your "wealth always = less population" argument.

What "wealth always = less population" argument? You don't even know what my argument reall is because you would prefer to create straw men instead of watch the extremely short video to find out what I'm actuallly referring to. You likely spent more time responding to this one point in this thread than it would take you to watch it.

As to why US population growth is a serious problem, well, the US uses 25% of the world's energy & contributes 25% of the world's pollution, IIRC, so I'll let you add two & two as to why that's a problem.

You seem to forget that we have the largest economy in the world by far that needs all that energy for it to continue to grow instead of stagnate, which most economists claim would be disasterous. So I'm adding 2 and 2 and getting the answer that you really don't want to argue facts at all. You want to argue fear, uncertainty, and doubt through misunderstandings and insinuations.

If you really want to understand population issues you should find a better academic source than merely myself (or an Entertainment Design speaker).

And I'm trying to point you towards one which you still refuse to watch. If you have time to read a book, you certainly have time to watch a short video.

Yes, he's worried about very different problems. I can't even figure out how you leapt to the idea that he's some evil racist on the internet bemoaning immigrants. But way to tackle that bull by the horns.

That's because I didn't even though you both apparently took it that way. Now do you understand my position, and why I said what I did after you have hopefully read my second attempt to explain it?

It's an excellent TED talk, with much reason for hope.

I wouldn't say hope. Hope is what you need when something is spiralling out of control with no solution at hand.

But don't forget that a bacteria colony reaching the edge of a petri dish would have excellent historical cause for optimism as well.

Well, I guess it's a good thing humans don't act like bacteria. If we actually experienced exponential growth with no natural enemies other than ourselves, I think we would have been eating each other in the form of Soylent Green long ago.

Nope, developed nations have birth rates below replacement anyway - if anything, underpopulation will be the concern of the future.

QFT.

 

[kuukkeli]

So far, new technology has always produced new problems. Hoping that we somehow develop a technology that solves our present problems without creating a new one is preposterous.

I don't think it's preposterous because all of the required technologies are within the speculative horizons of current science. We're not talking about wild fantasies but developments whose theoretical foundations have already been done - fusion power, nanotechnology, biotechnology, A.I. and eventual expansion into space.

In my opinion scientific advancements during the next century or two will change our lives more than the whole history of man before them. That is if we survive the clash of such science and the hateful ignorance still running rampant amongst us.

 

[crabapple]

The belief that technology will fix our problems is close to religious nowadays. And its true that technology might help abit, but unless we change as a race and start conserving the earth, we are doomed for collapse.And its technology that got us in this mess from the begining, without the industrialisation we wouldnt have had any large ecological problems now, so why believe that techology will fix everthing? it might help abit, but it will only slow down the coming collapse.

 

[warpus]

Nope, developed nations have birth rates below replacement anyway - if anything, underpopulation will be the concern of the future.

And developing nations live on another planet and/or have access to some sort of a magical well of unlimited natural resources?

We're all on the same planet - you make it sound like developed nations are isolated from a global problem.

 

[JohnRM]

Other: I think that overpopulation is a serious problem and I don't think that there is any ethical solution to it.

 

[kuukkeli]

The belief that technology will fix our problems is close to religious nowadays.

Except that science has something to back up its claims and it has no harmful values attached.

And its true that technology might help abit, but unless we change as a race and start conserving the earth, we are doomed for collapse.

Without a change we may be doomed but technology, if given proper resources, will help - as it has helped already. By turning our backs to technology and science we'd surely fade into oblivion.

And its technology that got us in this mess from the begining, without the industrialisation we wouldnt have had any large ecological problems now, so why believe that techology will fix everthing?

I believe that the world today is much more prosperous place to live in than the pre-industrialized world before. It's true that we have created some ecological problems along the road but the era before already had its own problems (mostly related to farming). Technology alone doesn't fix anything - it only gives us tools to do so.

it might help abit, but it will only slow down the coming collapse.

Barring unexpected natural catastrophes the only road to collapse I see is a conflict of ideologies - religions, politics, races, nations, what ever ways of separating ourselves we can come up with. Maybe (probably) there'll really be a war to end all wars before we can set our eyes on the future - I just hope that the reason stands among the winners.

P.S. Yeah, I'm feeling poetic and pompous

 

[Shekwan]

I look forward to the overpopulation of Europe by old people. They're awesome and I hopefully will be one too come the time they take over.

 

[Narz]

Once again, most people who are complaining that the US population is growing too much are people with a clear anti-immigration agenda because alll the recent growth is due to immigration and the birth rate of the recent immigrants. The growth by people whose ancestors have been here longer than 40 years is actually decreasing at present, and will likely continue to do so.

I don't care about them or their arguments.

And I certainly think there is still plenty of room for population growth in this country because our density is still so incredibly low: 177th in the world today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Yeah, and the whole SouthWest is basically desert. California could probably sustainably support less than 25% of it's current population. A place like Phoeix or Las Vegas probably less than 5%.

Antarctica has an even lower population density. Statitics without context are meaningless at best, misleading at worst.

See above again. I hope that's clear now.Try using the population growth of a country that actually has a fairly high density instead of one which is incredibly low. Bangladesh would be a much better case. Its population density is the 9th highest in the world, and it also has a fairly poor economy so you would expect that to be a real problem area. But according to the CIA World Factbook their growth rate is a mere 2%.

http://www.brockisd.net/Bouyer/atlas/factbook/geos/bg.html

Still too high. Needs to decline.

Once again, look at that TED lecture I posted. The big population menace that all the environmentalists were claiming was an inevitability only a few decades ago has largely gone by the wayside. Greater economic prosperity, education, and greater access to birth control are naturally causing these countries to now put on the brakes all by themselves.

Um, population is still shooting up. Even the example you gave (Bangladesh) is still increasing.

It doesn't sound like I need to watch the video, you seem to be summing it up well.

And now they aren't all that much different than any European country in the average size of families and other indicators.

Bangladesh's population is 153,546,896, So a 2% increase per year is about the same number of humans born as the entire country of the United States contained pre-Columbus (estimates vary but IIRC was around 3/4 million).

2% may sound small but it's still increasing. Sustainable world population in probably around 2-3 billion (again estimates vary, done by ecologists & scientists of course not economists & statisticians).

Plenty of Europe is still overpopulated also. It's clear you're assuming that it's not, that Europe is some sort of ideal. It's common. Edit : maybe you should watch your own video again, the only good part was where he pwned all the Sweedish students who automatically assumed all European countries have better child mortality than non-white ones.

Then I would strongly suggest you don't use a graph of US population growth to try to make you point...

I was merely refuting your demographic transition theory (which is bandied around as a principle).

It can't be done. Take 5 minutes to watch it if you really want to discuss this issue based on facts instead of perceptions from decades ago.

It honestly doesn't sound very good. From what you're saying it sounds like homeboy's saying "LOLz scaremongers of the 70's were wrong! Demographic transition FTW, now let me warp some statistics to quell your fears".

What "wealth always = less population" argument? You don't even know what my argument reall is because you would prefer to create straw men instead of watch the extremely short video to find out what I'm actuallly referring to. You likely spent more time responding to this one point in this thread than it would take you to watch it.

Fine. I'll watch it... Also 20 minutes isn't that short, I type fast...

ok, I stopped watching at 6:30 when he said "there is no gap between rich and poor anymore, that is a myth" (exact quote).

He didn't speak to overpopulation @ at all. Yes, many poor countries (the ones chosen for the graph to help rich white people feel better about themselves) did improve in terms of decreased family size (except for the Middle East).

Waste of 6:30 minutes.

You seem to forget that we have the largest economy in the world by far that needs all that energy for it to continue to grow instead of stagnate, which most economists claim would be disasterous.

I agree, it will be disastrous. Already is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

As world leaders gather in London for the Group of 20 summit meeting, the most wrenching statistic is this: According to World Bank estimates, the global economic crisis will cause an additional 22 children to die per hour, throughout all of 2009.

So 22 more children are dying per hour because of the world economic crisis & you're agreeing with a guy in this thread who says "Lolz, underpopulation is the real problem". Truly disturbing.

So I'm adding 2 and 2 and getting the answer that you really don't want to argue facts at all. You want to argue fear, uncertainty, and doubt through misunderstandings and insinuations.

Um, what? Nice personal attack. You want to have false comfort & certainty based on a feel good talk, go for it.

The real world is full of uncertainty. I'm not arguing fear, that's your projection, I'm saying we should have common sense & not pat ourselves on the back prematurely.

And I'm trying to point you towards one which you still refuse to watch. If you have time to read a book, you certainly have time to watch a short video.

But the book I read wasn't feel good gibberish.

Well, I guess it's a good thing humans don't act like bacteria. If we actually experienced exponential growth with no natural enemies other than ourselves, I think we would have been eating each other in the form of Soylent Green long ago.

But we have experienced exponential growth and are still experiencing it on the whole and the whole is what matters.

QFT.

It's not truth, it's perhaps the most idiotic statement in this thread.

Like ElMac says your entire argument is based on past trends which isn't a good way to gauge the future.

We need to follow the lead of China to avoid mass death in the 21st century. You can deem that "alarmist" if you like & hit the snooze button, most will, which pretty much ensures our f-edness. By the time political leaders lift the overpopulation taboo it will be far too late. Probably even 10 years ago it was.