Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[El_Machinae]

Well, the people who think that technology will save us have to realise that there's at least this limited list:
-fresh water
- fish stocks
- biodiveristy
- top soil

Are all currently dropping. They're going down. They're going down with 6 billion people. This means that (unless you have a replacement for fish, topsoil, and freshwater) we're currently unsustainable. Some of those were going down before we reached 4 billion. So, maybe the petri dish analogy is applicable. Oh, we've used technology to increase our ability to feed the 6 billion people, but we've just drawn down the list faster

 

[kuukkeli]

Then you really need to read Jared Diamonds Collapse

I will. I'm just not in his bandwagon after Guns, Germs and Steel so it hasn't been that high on my list. And while in the process of recommendating I'll suggest that you'll try to find Michio Kaku's three part BBC documentary called Visions of the Future - it's a fast glimpse on some of the stuff I have my trust on.

 

[Shaihulud]

Bu that's precisely it - you need much more energy, water, food and other resources to sustain one Westerner and his way of life.

The problem is that the West created an illusion in the Third World that if they do what our imbecile economists tell them to do, they will live like us one day. But that's impossible, because Earth can barely sustain some 1 billion First World citizens even today. If the remaining 5 billion people were to adopt our living standard, Earth wouldn't be able to sustain us anymore. We'd need 5 more planets to sustain 6 billion people living like present-day Europeans, Americans or Japanese.

I was actually more speaking to those who blame some African countries for having a high birthrate. Those births mean very little for problems in sustainability. I don't think that the 3rd world nations will collapse just yet. There is is potential for improvements yet.

I believe that the main solution is to educate everyone about the problems. Once it is understood by everyone, people will come up with solutions, from local to a global level Obviously the effort will have to come mostly from the 1st world because we are mainly responsible for the problems and only we have the capability to do it, and we will propably have to sacrifice our standards of living and consume much less.

The present is a stopgap to human growth, until we get into space, we have to reconsider how we have been growing as a species.

 

[Narz]

So, are you going to cry about it forever, or finally admit that the Africans need to adopt strict birth control policies ASAP?

I've been saying that for years now.

I have no compassion for a colony of bacteria which is about to die once it exhausts all the resources in its Petri dish.

Africans are living unsustainably. Europe, America or Japan have finally realized that they need to protect enviroment in order to keep their standards of living. Africans still "mine" their enviroment. Soon, they'll exhaust the resources and then we'll see a Rwanda/Somalia like collapse in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Wait, Industrialized nations are not mining their environments?

It's curious you think Africans are using more resources & causing more environmental harm than Europeans, Americans & Japanese.

I certainly agree that if Africa wants to avoid even worse suffering in the future "she" (the leaders of African nations, political, religious & cultural) needs to make sustainability a priority pronto. I don't see mass-bailouts in Africa's future, the 1st world will have it's hands full with it's own problems.

There is no point in giving them food that only allows them to breed more.

Again, I've been saying this for years (and getting plenty flaming for it).

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't care about them or their arguments.

That's fine. But don't ignore their graph which is factual except for their projections. The point is that the current US growth consists of illegal immigration or births from recent immigrants, which is a false indicator in your own context.

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%.

Based on what? Care to try to prove any ot those assertions or should we just take your word for it?

And what about the rest of the country? Are you actually trying to say that Iowa, for instance, is dangerously overcrowded?

Still too high. Needs to decline.

As it likely will. However, the point is that it is probably the most drastically overcrowded area on the planet and it has an incredibly small growth rate. Do you have have a case of a clearly overcrowded region that also has a very high growth rate? Isn't that your concern?

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

AFAIk I have no "demographic transition theory" nor did I express on in this thread. Nice straw man. Again.

I was merely refuting your demographic transition theory 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".

And now you are engaging in even more ad hominem attacks? Run out of facts again?

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.

Care to try to prove all those deaths are due to overpopulation instead of some other reason, such as hunger, disease, incredibly poor governments. etc. etc? Or should we just take your word for it? Again...

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

That wasn't a personal attack. That was a statement of fact so far. You have yet to provide any facts whatsoever to support your opinions. So far you have provided a graph showing population growth in the US, which is not really germane to this discussion as I have shown, and a NY Times article stating that a few children continue to starve, some of which may be actually be related to current overpopulation of a particular area but most of which likely are not, and that's it.

And it's highly ironic you are engaging in an ad hominem of your own in the same paragraph where you are claiming I am personally attacking you. Hello pot...

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

While everybody who disagrees with your is? Once again, nice ad hominem attack...

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

Care to show a single example of that? Or should we just take your word for it again?

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

Another ad hominem attack with no attempt whatsoever to dispute it with facts. Why am I not surprised...

 

[Snowball]

I'm sure someone has probably already said this somewhere in this thread, but it is a natural process for the birth rate to start to decline significantly between one and two generations after life expectancy reaches roughly western levels. We saw this happen in America and Europe in the 1900s, when people started preaching about having fewer kids and using birth control, the thing is, it was already happening. Generally, people aren't going to have fewer kids because you tell them that they need to. They have fewer kids because it makes more sense economically.

And Now in the third world, with the introduction of vaccines and better food supply, people are still having the same number of kids as before. But that rate is starting to decline and I would bet that in 50 years, its going to be something close to the birthrate in the U.S.

So no, I don't think overpopulation is an issue now, nor do I think it will be a problem in the furure, because the situation will take care of itself.

 

[El_Machinae]

If we wait for the 'two generation' transition, the population will easily go above 9 billion. We need people to adopt the lower birthrate now and while their wealth improves.

 

[Narz]

The present is a stopgap to human growth, until we get into space, we have to reconsider how we have been growing as a species.

I really don't think space stations or colonies on the moon or any such will ever become self-sufficient. Unless we someone find some Total Recall type machine aliens built a million years ago and even then we'd have to transport millions of tons of water, soil, seeds & equipment even assuming we could magically fix the atomosphere & climate of a planet. And there's no telling how gravitational differences would effect life in the long term.

In the meantime we have to treat the Earth as our only home.

 

[ecuwins]

Nature fixes this problem via disease and famine.

 

[crabapple]

Nature fixes this problem via disease and famine.

The problem is that there is medicin to get nowadays

 

[Narz]

That's fine. But don't ignore their graph which is factual except for their projections. The point is that all the current US growth consists of illegal immigration, which is a false indicator in your own context.

It's not a false anything. Get off your race trip, nature doesn't care if the new people being born are Puerto Rican, Italian, British or Chinese. Just drop it.

Based on what? Care to try to prove any ot those assertions or should we just take your word for it?

Do some research, goto Las Vegas and find out where they get their water from, how far it comes from, what their economy depends on, how far their food travels, how many people lived there pre-casino-era, climatologist projections for the area in the future. Maybe it is totally sustainable & the population can rise tenfold again, who knows? I'll wait back for your report.

And what about the rest of the country? Are you actually trying to say that Iowa, for instance, is dangerously overcrowded?

Not all places are overcrowded, no.

As it likely will. However, the point is that it is probably the most drastically overcrowded area on the planet and it has an incredibly small growth rate.

It's not an incredibly small growth rate though. Over 3 million new humans a year in an already overcrowded area smaller than Iowa (to go with a familiar frame of reference) is perhaps a step in the right direction but hardly sustainable.

Do you have have a case of a clearly overcrowded region that also has a very high growth rate? Isn't that your concern?
Here's a list by country

http://indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=gz&v=24

Keep in mind percentage isn't as important as total growth.

AFAIk I have no "demographic transition theory" nor did I express on in this thread. Nice straw man. Again.

Saying that population growth is solved by wealth is appealing to the demographic transition theory (which is the only reason I posted the US population chart).

Education, yes, certainly helps but increase in wealth alone, no.

And now you are engaging in even more ad hominem attacks? Run out of facts again?

You can't have "facts" about the future only projections. And I didn't engage in any attack.

Care to try to prove all those deaths are due to overpopulation instead of some other reason, such as hunger, disease, incredibly poor governments. etc. etc? Or should we just take your word for it? Again...

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/malnutrition.htm

Pollution is, to a large degree, a result of overcrowded. In the US we don't feel it so much because there's plenty of "useless" land we can ship our waste to. When land is filled with humans there is nowhere to ship it.

I posted an article supporting my assertion below (in my above post).

That wasn't a personal attack. That was a statement of fact so far.

No. You're judging my intentions wrongly, hardly factual.

You have yet to provide any facts whatsoever to support your opinions. So far you have provided a graph showing population growth in the US, which is not really germane to this discussion as I have shown,

BS. It refuted your first "point" that economic growth = population stability and when you couldn't jibe that with your rigid worldview you tried to start some crap about race.

and a NY Times article stating that a few children continue to starve,

A few children continue to starve? WTH? 57% of the world's population is malnoruished.

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/malnutrition.htm

Malnutrition Kills 6 Million Children Annually
The research shows that 57 percent of the current world population of about 6.5 billion is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of the world population of 2.5 billion in 1950. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of death for 6 million children each year, but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to deadly health problems such as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other life-threatening diseases, according to the report.

some of which may be actually be related to current overpopulation of a particular area but most of which likely are not, and that's it.

That's only it if you ignore reality.

And it's highly ironic you are engaging in an ad hominem of your own in the same paragraph where you are claiming I am personally attacking you. Hello pot...



While everybody who disagrees with your is? Once again, nice ad hominem attack...



Care to show a single example of that? Or should we just take your word for it again?



Another ad hominem attack with no attempt whatsoever to dispute it with facts. Why am I not surprised...

blah blah blah, I give up. read the articles I posted or not, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Malnutrition Kills 6 Million Children Annually

While I agree that nobody should be starving, you haven't been able to show that any significant number of those deaths are actually caused by overpopulation instead of malnutrition or other causes. And while the chronic overuse of the statistic that six million children are starving to death annually may be a great plea to liberal sympathies, it also means that the vast majority of children are not starving to death. If overpopulation was really such a great concern, I would expect that figure to be much higher. Wouldn't you?

read the articles I posted or not.

You mean as you failed to do with the short video I posted? Hello pot...

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

Good news I'm sure for those who would rather read rational discussions using facts instead of ad hominems, straw men, and uncorroborated sources like about.com using large bold fonts...

 

[Maniacal]

Good news I'm sure for those who would rather read rational discussions using facts instead of ad hominems, straw men, and sources like about.com using large bold fonts...

I like how you'e run out of stuff to actually talk abotu and are merely plugging your ears with your fingers saying "Your arguments are false lal a la".

At least, that is the picture in my head.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I like how you'e run out of stuff to actually talk abotu and are merely plugging your ears with your fingers saying "Your arguments are false lal a la".

At least, that is the picture in my head.

I think you got that backwards.

I don't care about them or their arguments.

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

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".

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).

Waste of 6:30 minutes).

.

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.

.

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

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

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.

That's only it if you ignore reality.

Do some research, goto Las Vegas and find out where they get their water from, how far it comes from, what their economy depends on, how far their food travels, how many people lived there pre-casino-era, climatologist projections for the area in the future. Maybe it is totally sustainable & the population can rise tenfold again, who knows? I'll wait back for your report..

BS. It refuted your first "point" that economic growth = population stability and when you couldn't jibe that with your rigid worldview you tried to start some crap about race.

A few children continue to starve? WTH? 57% of the world's population is malnoruished.

blah blah blah, I give up. read the articles I posted or not, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

I am more than willing to discuss the subject with someone who will back up what they say with facts when asked to do so, and who will actually read or watch what I post to back up my own opinions.

Want to give it a try? Or are you just going to stand back and engage in even more ad hominens as you just did?

 

[El_Machinae]

The only bacteria dying in a viable petri dish are the ones smack-dab in the middle of the colony, because they've completely run out of nutrients (even cannibalism). This true even as the colonies are racing towards the edge.

Narz, you should watch the two Hans Rosling TED talks. He's not really saying (about the rich) what you think he's saying. And his ability to describe his thesis with graphics is really amazing: his presentations style is one of his best contributions.

And for people not concerned with overpopulation: could they maybe present an essential resource which is increasing instead of decreasing?

 

[Shaihulud]

I really don't think space stations or colonies on the moon or any such will ever become self-sufficient. Unless we someone find some Total Recall type machine aliens built a million years ago and even then we'd have to transport millions of tons of water, soil, seeds & equipment even assuming we could magically fix the atomosphere & climate of a planet. And there's no telling how gravitational differences would effect life in the long term.

In the meantime we have to treat the Earth as our only home.

Once we have the technology to have space colonies, is when we can harvest energy and resources from space. It will be the greatest thing that human beings will have done. Obviously the process will take 100s of years.

I wonder would it be possible to genetically modify a human being to be able to live life healthily in space or a human to ingest less food?

 

[TheLastOne36]

I wonder what society's opinion would be if we developed food in a lab, where we artificially inject protein and other stuff into artificially made food which was artificially made to taste, feel and look the same as their real life counterparts.

If we did that and stopped the killing of barn animals, stopped argiculture and stopped wasting our planet's resources for a few centuries for our planet to recover. I'd be pretty interesting what the reaction of society.

 

[Shaihulud]

I wonder what society's opinion would be if we developed food in a lab, where we artificially inject protein and other stuff into artificially made food which was artificially made to taste, feel and look the same as their real life counterparts.

If we did that and stopped the killing of barn animals, stopped argiculture and stopped wasting our planet's resources for a few centuries for our planet to recover. I'd be pretty interesting what the reaction of society.

Under the cultural norm, we would not want that, but if the situation becomes dire, we would have to accept the unacceptable, or die.

 

[Winner]

I've been saying that for years now.

Very well then.

Wait, Industrialized nations are not mining their environments?

Some are - Australia for example is living unsustainably. Europe, for example, is on the right path, I believe. Our forests are growing larger, the EU has finally forced the companies to tell us what chemicals they use, register and test them and there is a growing consensus in Europe that we need to adopt even greener policies.

The problem is that we often just export our problems to the Third World - send them our trash, our emissions and our polluting companies.

It's curious you think Africans are using more resources & causing more environmental harm than Europeans, Americans & Japanese.

Europeans and Japanese are definitely not destroying the environment they live in. In my country, the environmental situation has improved rapidly since the fall of communism. There is a big problem with overfishing though.

Africans, on the other hand, are deforesting, overgrazing and otherwise destroying the environment they live in. That's very dangerous for them.

I certainly agree that if Africa wants to avoid even worse suffering in the future "she" (the leaders of African nations, political, religious & cultural) needs to make sustainability a priority pronto. I don't see mass-bailouts in Africa's future, the 1st world will have it's hands full with it's own problems.

The problem is that the Africans seem to be happy to welcome just another "colonizer", this time in the form of Chinese/Indian companies which just want to extract even more resources to feed growing Asian economies. It's ironic - when the Europeans have finally learn how to do things right, nobody trusts them anymore and choose another exploiters to complete the devastation.

Meanwhile, their destroying what's left of their envionment in order to sustain rapidly growing population. This is a suicide, and I am young enough to be a able to see the collapse when it comes in few decades.

Again, I've been saying this for years (and getting plenty flaming for it).

Sorry then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Winner, things are still bad in Europe. It may not be as bad as other places, but it's actually not sustainable right now. What that means, of course, is that things will be worse in Europe in 20 years than they are now. They still need to improve things, which means that actual sacrifice and efforts need to be made.

Biodiversity in the UK is continuing to decline according to statistics released by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7982461.stm

Biodiversity loss is one of those things that have a huge tipping point problem. It why I let large portions of my backyard grow wild, because there are large swaths of land being devoted to monoculture.