"Overpopulation is NOT the cause of social or economic problems."

[Zelig]

Though don't forget -- the history of humanity is the history of lots and lots of poor people dying.

Wealthy people don't die any less than poor people.

 

[Dachs]

Wealthy people don't die any less than poor people.

but there are much fewer of them

 

[Masada]

Seriously, can people actually, I dunno, read Malthus before invoking him? 'An Essay on the Principle of Population' isn't that much of a slog and you can download it from Project Gutenburg for free.

And as Malthasus said, Poverty means more People which means more Poverty. It's a vicious vicious circle aimed to bite you in the butt, it sucks yes.

Malthus didn't say that. His basic thesis was much more elegant than that. He posited that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Simply put, he assumed that population growth would always outstrip the added productive capacity of land for each additional unit of labour (population) added to the system. Over time, this would reduce the amount of food available per person. Eventually, a point would be reached at which this was not enough to sustain the population and all hell would break loose in the form of a 'Malthusian Catastrophe'.

In the meantime he believed that all human misery could be traced to this impossible catch-up game. Plague? Hunger. War? Hunger. Mass killings? Hunger. Infanticide? Hunger. Dude believed that this was the singularly most important factor in determining how things worked in the long run. But it had nothing much to do with being poor. On the contrary he believed that it was the inevitable result of people enjoying sex and consequently procreating that caused it. It didn't matter if you were poor, that had nothing to do with it. It just meant that when it hit you would be the first to die. (Incidentally, Clark (1995) demonstrates rather persuasively that most of the population growth in Europe before 1900 was essentially trickle down from the middle class, in large part, because the mortality rate for the poor was so high). But population is only one half of the equation and is by far the least important. I dunno why it gets so much attention...

Today, we make food producing more productive, not to mention Western "Aid" (which is actually making things worse IMO), diseases with modern day healthcare don't happen and we are don't have wars anymore. So Overpopulation is a problem.

The other side is of course food production. Which must have risen faster than food consumption for us to be even having this conversation. Personally, I don't give a fig about population growth so long as food production continues to rise proportion to it. As far as I know it has. But in acknowledging that productivity has increased faster than population we've refuted Mathlus completely. It was a fundamental tenet of his work that this was impossible. Why? Because he ignored technology completely!

Ancient Times example: Anasazi of Northern Mexico

Provide empirical proof that this was the case. That argument is basically at the level of speculation.

Middle Times Example: Easter Island

Same, thing.

 

[TheLastOne36]

The other side is of course food production. Which must have risen faster than food consumption for us to be even having this conversation. Personally, I don't give a fig about population growth so long as food production continues to rise proportion to it. As far as I know it has. But in acknowledging that productivity has increased faster than population we've refuted Mathlus completely. It was a fundamental tenet of his work that this was impossible. Why? Because he ignored technology completely!

We haven't refuted Malthus with modern day technology, we just created a bubble.

We don't know and probably never will know what happened on Easter Island and to the Anasazi. We can however speculate and state the most likely reason is due to environmental collapse of the area caused by these two societies. (In both cases, although there is no proof of what happened exactly, there is proof of massive deforestation and erosion.)

 

[Dachs]

(Incidentally, Clark (1995) demonstrates rather persuasively that most of the population growth in Europe before 1900 was essentially trickle down from the middle class, in large part, because the mortality rate for the poor was so high).

I thought that Clark's argument about that stuff applied chiefly to Britain, more specifically to England, and that his evidence for the same thing happening on the Continent was less than ample.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, without invoking Malthus, it's still pretty easy to try to predict whether population growth will be a problem. An indicator would be if the cost of food rises faster than economic growth. Canada and the US, iirc, use 10% of our income to purchase food (and that includes prepared foods): I don't know if it's on an upward or downward trend. I'd hope that it trends upwards until externalities are captured, but then wouldn't want it to move upward after that. Another indicator is whether the marginal cost of increased capacity is increasing: does it cost more to get more calories out of untapped resources?

There are now more hungry people than have ever existed, so we know that there's some type of fundamental breakdown. At the surface, it all looks political: but ALL food breakdowns in a civilization will look like there's a political cause (because we don't get food by harvesting our personal back-40).

It's obvious that we might be playing at some type of trouble. The number of fossil fuel calories required per calorie of food is rising. There are efficiencies to be had, obviously, but then we're balancing different trends: efficiencies vs. an increased cost of inputs.

I don't think that there should be an argument that it would be wise to reduce population growth and help create an economic system that allows growth even in the face of no population growth.

 

[duckstab]

...by then we will easily be 9 billion people, all of which would like to have the living standard of a person in the USA.

There is no way we have the electricity, the oil, the meat, the fish, the copper, the phosphorus, the fresh water, the timber and all the other things that will be needed to satisfy all those people.

By then we will have two options:
1. Forced redistribution of goods.
2. Free-market distribution of goods.

(1) will be impossible ...

(2) will mean that those who are rich enough will be able to procure the wanted goods, and those who aren't will not even get the needed resources.

I can not see how we can avoid a future situation where lots and lots of poor people are dieing.

This basically echoes my views. Just bringing everyone in China and India up to first world living standards probably requires doubling or tripling the entire GDP of the planet, and the world economy as a whole isn't growing that fast or likely to be able to for a long time.

I don't necessarily see mass starvation as the inevitable result, because I think we will find ways of producing food closer to the place of consumption. Another likely driver there will be the increasing price of oil as it becomes more expensive to extract. For example, I saw one proposal for building hydroponic high-rises to raise food in urban areas.

However, I do think it's going to be hard to avoid an increasing disparity world-wide between the haves and have-nots, and that's a recipe for social and political instability. It's likely to be a bumpy ride.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Hopefully us Humans would be smart enough to build Solar Panel farms at large scale before Oil runs out.

 

[Hehehe]

If overpopulation will ever become a serious problem, it will fix itself.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

indeed we would have to stop breeding so fast and indeed it's not gonna happen which will cause huge headaches. it doesn't take a freakin genius to see that higher population density means a lower quality of life.

 

[TheLastOne36]

If overpopulation will ever become a serious problem, it will fix itself.

It will, but it will be very very ugly. In the past, it fixed itself before there was a problem, but now with medicine, foreign aid, wars being taboo, the problem just escalates until it will hit a certain point, than said society will collapse. (like in Rwanda)

 

[duckstab]

Hopefully us Humans would be smart enough to build Solar Panel farms at large scale before Oil runs out.

I definitely support more use of solar and wind power, however they're not as well-suited to mobile applications. And let's not forget that petrochemicals are the basis for most plastics and other materials we use in the modern world. I expect that at some point we're going to need to conserve oil for purposes other than fuel. All that, I think, adds up to travel and transportation becoming more expensive, which means we're going to be fulfilling more of our needs and desires locally.

 

[Cheetah]

All that, I think, adds up to travel and transportation becoming more expensive, which means we're going to be fulfilling more of our needs and desires locally.

Because Norway can support the current population without importing 90% of our food?

Because Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are clearly going to be able to support their bloated (in numbers) populations without massive, cheap oil?

And China, India, Thailand and other countries will continue to have a growing economy once transportation costs render their products much more expensive on Western markets?

Last time Norway had to be self-dependent, we couldn't have much more than a million people. But that was okay. The USA was okay with accepting a million Norwegians. Wonder where we can send 3.5 million Norwegians this time...

 

[TheLastOne36]

Because Norway can support the current population without importing 90% of our food?

Because Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are clearly going to be able to support their bloated (in numbers) populations without massive, cheap oil?

And China, India, Thailand and other countries will continue to have a growing economy once transportation costs render their products much more expensive on Western markets?

Last time Norway had to be self-dependent, we couldn't have much more than a million people. But that was okay. The USA was okay with accepting a million Norwegians. Wonder where we can send 3.5 million Norwegians this time...

Maybe if you eat mushrooms for breakfest, lunch and dinner?

 

[Cheetah]

Maybe if you eat mushrooms for breakfest, lunch and dinner?

When you mention it, there was a guy last year who did eat quite a lot of mushrooms. Then he got the revelation that if he walked naked from Trondheim to Orkanger (maybe 50 km or so?) he could save his grandmother from dieing of cancer. The catch was that if he stepped on asphalt the world would end. So a naked guy ran through wilderness and peoples backyards to save his grandmother and not end the world, and they needed 7 policemen to catch him, because he was too slippery from mud, and sweat and urine and I don't know what...

Hm...

Any other suggestions to what we can eat?

 

[Yeekim]

The other side is of course food production. Which must have risen faster than food consumption for us to be even having this conversation. Personally, I don't give a fig about population growth so long as food production continues to rise proportion to it. As far as I know it has. But in acknowledging that productivity has increased faster than population we've refuted Mathlus completely. It was a fundamental tenet of his work that this was impossible. Why? Because he ignored technology completely!

Finite resources can not support infinite population growth, no matter how advanced technolgy one has. Doesn't really take a genius to recognize that, does it?

Any other suggestions to what we can eat?

Mushrooms can be absolutely delicious. They certainly beat a lot of other... things from Norwegian cuisine.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Malthus mostly just failed to see oil and the fertilizer- and farm automation industry it spawned coming. Which kinda brings up the question of what we are missing if Malthus is wrong again this time. Nuclear fusion?

 

[Masada]

We haven't refuted Malthus with modern day technology, we just created a bubble.

Right, because when his whole argument fails to take account technology its still totally valid. I suggest you read what he had to say before you talk about him any further. Even better, I suggest you just ignore Malthus and cast around for some of the more persuasive neo-Malthusians who don't fall into this trap. Or alternatively, ditch Malthus and go for, I dunno, some other totemic and completely misunderstood thinker: Keynes perhaps?

We don't know and probably never will know what happened on Easter Island and to the Anasazi. We can however speculate and state the most likely reason is due to environmental collapse of the area caused by these two societies. (In both cases, although there is no proof of what happened exactly, there is proof of massive deforestation and erosion.)

'Speculation'.

Well, without invoking Malthus, it's still pretty easy to try to predict whether population growth will be a problem. An indicator would be if the cost of food rises faster than economic growth. Canada and the US, iirc, use 10% of our income to purchase food (and that includes prepared foods): I don't know if it's on an upward or downward trend.

Long term downward trend.

There are now more hungry people than have ever existed, so we know that there's some type of fundamental breakdown.

Absolute vs. Relative.

At the surface, it all looks political: but ALL food breakdowns in a civilization will look like there's a political cause (because we don't get food by harvesting our personal back-40).

Oddly enough, a large part of the world still does harvest their own food.

It's obvious that we might be playing at some type of trouble. The number of fossil fuel calories required per calorie of food is rising. There are efficiencies to be had, obviously, but then we're balancing different trends: efficiencies vs. an increased cost of inputs.

I'll grant this. But it isn't as important as everyone seems to think.

Finite resources can not support infinite population growth, no matter how advanced technolgy one has. Doesn't really take a genius to recognize that, does it?

Malthus didn't. He simply assumed that all technological growth, if there was any, would be eaten up by additional hungry mouths always. Which isn't the case. The assumption about infinite population is also misplaced we know that population is going to stabilise in around 40 years. Malthus incidentally didn't take into account falling fertility rates either.

Malthus mostly just failed to see oil and the fertilizer- and farm automation industry it spawned coming. Which kinda brings up the question of what we are missing if Malthus is wrong again this time. Nuclear fusion?

It has little to do with fertiliser. In farming terms fertiliser is a variable input. Its important but not that important. What he really didn't foresee (and what was already happening during his lifetime) was other more prosaic things like improved husbandry of animals and the first systematic attempts to improve crop yields through selective breeding. It wasn't until the 1940s in most industrialised states that industrial farming and fertiliser became important. For the intervening century and a half it was these other things that were important. Incidentally, for most places in the world even today its these things that still are.

 

[innonimatu]

Bullcrap.
Not to mention he is basing this entirely on the assumption that there is endless amount of natural resources which will never run out, which is obviously not the case.
[...]
The planet already can't handle us in the Americas, Europe, Australia and East Asia. If we added another two billion Indians, Africans and Indonesians the world is doomed unless we in the west change our ways.

Bullcrap (incidentally, thanks for showing that this version doesn't get censored ).
There are plenty of resources, the only possible limit is availability of energy. But even that one should be easy to work around, considering the staggering amount which the planet receives constantly from the Sun. HE just have to keep developing technology to better capture it (keep as in: we are already doing it).

Historically, natural causes dealt with overpopulation quite easily, with famines, diseases and war.

And yet, the planet's population kept rising...

What happened to societies that got overpopulated and could not sustain itself, and where natural causes couldn't stop it?

Ancient Times example: Anasazi of Northern Mexico
Middle Times Example: Easter Island
Modern Times example: Rwanda and Burundi

Make the conclusions from there.

Aren't you forgetting something very important, namely: all the rest of the bloody world?

What happened to "overpopulated" Europe? Why, it got richer! What happened to the Americas which have had a population explosion over the past 300 or so years? They got richer. What happened to Japan? What happened to China? Hell, even the indians are probably better off that they were 100 years ago.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Bullcrap (incidentally, thanks for showing that this version doesn't get censored ).
There are plenty of resources, the only possible limit is availability of energy. But even that one should be easy to work around, considering the staggering amount which the planet receives constantly from the Sun. HE just have to keep developing technology to better capture it (keep as in: we are already doing it).

welcome. Your actually allowed to say crap here. (Although it took some 20 or so warnings and infractions for me to stop using §hit and start using crap )

There are plenty of resources, but not enough is the entire world were first world.

And yet, the planet's population kept rising...

And that had nothing to do with rising living conditions and development in Eurasia right?

Aren't you forgetting something very important, namely: all the rest of the bloody world?

What happened to "overpopulated" Europe? Why, it got richer! What happened to the Americas which have had a population explosion over the past 300 or so years? They got richer. What happened to Japan? What happened to China? Hell, even the indians are probably better off that they were 100 years ago.

I don't see your point. Areas with traditionally highly developed societies and rich land and resources are going to be able to sustain large populations. Not all areas of the globe are as rich as Europe, Japan or North America, and not all areas can sustain that much people.