Is overpopulation and the human breeding the root of all evil on the planet ?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 11:02:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is overpopulation and the human breeding the root of all evil on the planet ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is overpopulation and the human breeding the root of all evil on the planet ?  (Read 2292 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:24:07 AM »



Discuss.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2014, 11:28:43 AM »

Overpopulation is not real. Modern day Malthuses are as wrong as ever. That graph is also idiotic.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2014, 11:33:32 AM »

hahah, no.  Like Sim just said, overpopulation isn't a problem.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2014, 11:42:06 AM »
« Edited: August 30, 2014, 01:15:37 PM by MooMooMoo »

It is annoying to have to wait in lines, though.

With the population beginning to stabilize and probably stabilizing at 10-11 billion by the end of how long I can reasonably expect to live, I expect technology will allow us to support increased standards of living and a stabilizing ecosystem.

Good policies and better engineering and basic research should be enough. Environmental policies work and as long as there is money going to education and research, I'm optimistic.  If not, I expect things to "sort themselves out".
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,968
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2014, 12:00:04 PM »

Agree with Simfan and Dead0. Malthusianism is idiotic.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2014, 01:17:54 PM »

Agree with Simfan and Dead0. Malthusianism is idiotic.

Malthusianism would be correct if our engineering and policy capabilities do not adapt fast enough to allow more people to have more stuff without hurting our ability to do those things more so in the future. Its not just about absolute deprivation but relative deprivation as well. I'd imagine if that wasn't the case, the president would be a Republican and have a 70% approval rating right now.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2014, 01:29:17 PM »

No. We could fit the whole world population into the city of Los Angeles if we really wanted.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2014, 02:46:25 PM »

While a global population of five, six, seven (or whatever) billion is sustainable today (and quite easily: the problem of famine in the modern world is a problem of distribution), a global population of that sort of size in 1314 would not have been. Malthus was fundamentally wrong about several things, but what turned him into the laughing stock of later centuries was one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of agriculture (i.e. the introduction of fodder crops) rather than a flaw in his reasoning. Essentially, his thesis was overtaken - and rendered absurd - by events. Previous population expansions in Europe had generally ended famine. And even today there are parts of the world that are clearly 'overpopulated'.

Having said all that, the answer to the question is obviously a resounding no. Contrary to popular belief, wars are rarely fought for basic material resources, and the worst atrocities almost never. To say nothing of the heinous actions of random individuals on other individuals. Rape is not caused by overpopulation.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2014, 02:55:54 PM »

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." 1 Timothy 6:10a

One can argue the excessive breeding is indirectly a result of love of money.  In preindustrial patriarchal societies, having more offspring is a means to increased wealth.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2014, 03:02:09 PM »

Averroes is right. Humanity's strain on the Earth is not from excessive population growth, but due to modern consumerism's reckless and unsustainable use of natural resources.

Also this graph and thread title seem to imply that evil only began to exist around the time of the Renaissance in Europe so I don't know what's up with that, I'm sure plenty of people were dicks back when overall population growth was around zero
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2014, 03:40:34 PM »
« Edited: August 30, 2014, 03:48:50 PM by They call me PR »

Note that the countries that have the highest birth rates aren't necessarily the same countries as those with unsustainable patterns of consumption (which could be addressed, in part, by policies that promoted human need rather than economic growth-but that's some Utopian nonsense apparently...)

In other words, Nix, Bacon King, and Al are right.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2014, 04:56:32 PM »

While a global population of five, six, seven (or whatever) billion is sustainable today (and quite easily: the problem of famine in the modern world is a problem of distribution), a global population of that sort of size in 1314 would not have been. Malthus was fundamentally wrong about several things, but what turned him into the laughing stock of later centuries was one of the most important breakthroughs in the history of agriculture (i.e. the introduction of fodder crops) rather than a flaw in his reasoning. Essentially, his thesis was overtaken - and rendered absurd - by events. Previous population expansions in Europe had generally ended famine. And even today there are parts of the world that are clearly 'overpopulated'.

Having said all that, the answer to the question is obviously a resounding no. Contrary to popular belief, wars are rarely fought for basic material resources, and the worst atrocities almost never. To say nothing of the heinous actions of random individuals on other individuals. Rape is not caused by overpopulation.

More or less this.

Note that the countries that have the highest birth rates aren't necessarily the same countries as those with unsustainable patterns of consumption (which could be addressed, in part, by policies that promoted human need rather than economic growth-but that's some Utopian nonsense apparently...)

In other words, Nix, Bacon King, and Al are right.

The key is economic growth and population growth and the goal is to make sure what is impossible today is what is the status quo 50 years from now.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,066
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2014, 06:52:27 PM »

lol, no.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2014, 07:45:35 PM »

Agree with Simfan and Dead0. Malthusianism is idiotic.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2014, 01:15:36 AM »

What Nix said. It's not the "root of all evil", duh, but just going "lol malthus" is not actually an answer, and certainly not any sort of answer that is conscious of basic science.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2014, 02:41:24 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2014, 04:26:14 PM by HagridOfTheDeep »

I think it's a mistake to disregard the fact that land has a carrying capacity. Technological innovations can stretch it out, but at the end of the day, access to those technologies is not equal and fair, and in some places the increase of people outpaces the spread of technology. Yes, the issue often fixes itself (people die), but that doesn't do much for local quality of life.

So I'd summarize my opinion like this: Looking at the Earth from space, I wouldn't say that overpopulation is, on average, a massive problem. Looking at it in specific places, it really is.

I mean, look—death rates have dropped in the developing world with the spread of Western medicine. Infant mortality is down. Life expectancy is up. The trouble is, cultural disparities have prevented birth rates from similarly dipping. One example is that parents still hold onto the idea that they need to make more babies so that the kids can go out and earn extra money for the family. Couples have many babies as a sort of insurance policy... they expect some of the children to die. What's happening now though is that they actually aren't dying, so we end up with all these families living in arid places with piss-poor access to decent farmland and too many mouths to feed. Here, overpopulation is a problem because access to vital resources sucks and too many people are competing for the same stuff. How can you honestly say that's not a problem? It would be okay in a place with wealth, access to food and water, and good infrastructure, but not everywhere has that.

So yeah, the developing world would be better off with less people. This is where I think empowering women would really make a difference. Let's actually educate women so that having eight kids is no longer necessary or common. Let's make sure the caretakers of the family—the "mothers of the nation"—actually know a bit about family planning.

Anyway, I've gone off topic, but I think expecting the problem to solve itself or waiting on "the inevitable spread of technology" misses the mark. There are unique factors that make overpopulation a problem in certain places, and we shouldn't approach the issue as if the silver bullet is "we need more food!"
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2014, 12:41:27 PM »

What Nix said. It's not the "root of all evil", duh, but just going "lol malthus" is not actually an answer, and certainly not any sort of answer that is conscious of basic science.

And of population history prior to the agricultural breakthroughs of recent centuries...
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2014, 12:53:55 PM »

What Nix said. It's not the "root of all evil", duh, but just going "lol malthus" is not actually an answer, and certainly not any sort of answer that is conscious of basic science.

And of population history prior to the agricultural breakthroughs of recent centuries...

Yeah.  We've managed to massively up our planet's carrying capacity through better farming techniques and stuff like petroleum-based fertilizer... but that doesn't mean we've negated the concept of carrying capacity, not any more than the Wright Brothers repealed the laws of gravity.

And of course those petro fertilizers won't last forever.

And, even if they did, there's the danger of desertification, sea level rise, aquifer depletion, etc. clawing back many of our gains even in the absence of an energy crunch...
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2014, 04:28:01 PM »

What Nix said. It's not the "root of all evil", duh, but just going "lol malthus" is not actually an answer, and certainly not any sort of answer that is conscious of basic science.

And of population history prior to the agricultural breakthroughs of recent centuries...

Yeah.  We've managed to massively up our planet's carrying capacity through better farming techniques and stuff like petroleum-based fertilizer... but that doesn't mean we've negated the concept of carrying capacity, not any more than the Wright Brothers repealed the laws of gravity.

And of course those petro fertilizers won't last forever.

And, even if they did, there's the danger of desertification, sea level rise, aquifer depletion, etc. clawing back many of our gains even in the absence of an energy crunch...

There are probably ways of stretching resources even further that we haven't implemented yet. The problem is if we reach our current carrying capacity without raising it. (sound like a familiar issue?)

Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2014, 06:22:53 PM »

Looks like a Fox News graph.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2014, 06:31:58 PM »

Its responsible for most of our problems, but certainly not all.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2014, 07:02:56 AM »

To intelligently discuss, the vertical axis needs to be logarithmic, with equal steps for each factor of 10.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,680


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2014, 11:07:09 PM »

Has the Club of Rome come back from the dead or something? 
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2014, 01:49:42 AM »

Has the Club of Rome come back from the dead or something? 

Its still active.

http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=375


Do you dislike it? Their agenda is as relevant as ever IMO.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2014, 12:57:54 AM »

Malthusianism would be correct if our engineering and policy capabilities do not adapt fast enough to allow more people to have more stuff without hurting our ability to do those things more so in the future. Its not just about absolute deprivation but relative deprivation as well. I'd imagine if that wasn't the case, the president would be a Republican and have a 70% approval rating right now.

His prediction was never going to be correct. He lived too early during the ascent of capitalism to see that it was much more likely that humanity would develop birth control, women's lib, and one-child policies. Malthus also lived before the industrial revolution so he never learned that birth rates would naturally decline as machines replaced the need for family laborers.

Malthus has little or nothing to contribute to modern economics or culture.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.