Talk Elections

With all the news on climate change and the rising imbalances in nature, do we have to ask the sincere and uncomfortable question, whether the earth is overpopulated? Human kind uses too much ressources and destroys the nature in a record pace. Just a very limited list of issues: We're not just using more ressources than we can recreate (fossil fuels, wood, land etc.), the world also consumes too much energy and there is way too much pollution. And I'm not just talking about carbon emissions. For example, microplastics are a huge problem, destroying entire ecosystems. The growing consumption of meat is creating a whole lot of other problems as well. I could go on and on.

Since it's difficult to implement worldwide and far reaching reforms, don't we have to ask the question, whether it's sustainable if world population continues to be remain this high, let alone grow? Population growth isn't an American or Western problem, though we use by far the most ressources per capita. I think if things don't change in the first half of this century, we're doomed. Wars over ressources will be inevitable. And they combined the climate change will certainly cause massive refugee streams. We've seen the political consequences of the refugee crisis in Europe since 2015, but that one will look like a tiny incident in comparison.

As uncomfortable it sounds, I think we actually need measures to reduce the world population. Birth control is one important tool, maybe a one or two-child policy in certain areas of the world, although we've seen the negative demographic consequences in China. There is obviously no magic solution.

What do you think?

Yes. Free birth control and abortions would help.

no, there is plenty of food and room.  People in the 70s said the same sh**t then as you are now, and here we are 40 years later with WAY more people and WAY fewer people starving (never mind that we have MORE oil reserves now than then, never mind that there are more trees now than then).  Weird right?  The air was horrible, rivers were catching on fire, the number of active wars was crazy, terrorism was a several times worse...of course we should stop whomever is dumping plastic into the ocean (it's not from straws in the US or Europe), of course we should do what we can to clean up the messes we've made, but this "oh, it's so much worse now than it's ever been, whoa is us"  is bull sh**t.

Depends how you want to live.

k

Our issue is mostly in the way that space and food is distributed, and the hackneyed opposition to share those resources by those with the space and food.

indeed, and >90% of those without access to those two things live under corrupt govts in the third world...oddly (not really) the same places dumping all the plastic into the oceans

There aren't "too many people" (though "too many idiots" might be true)--the problem is resource hoarding--too much in the hands of a small number of people.

That's the question of income inequality, not necessarily ressources. Other countries have more natural ressources than the United States. Europe doesn't have a lot of natural ressources at all.

I mean.......this really isn't true is it??

Is this a sock account for Thanos?

I guess it is when I am in a traffic jam and either haven't moved in 15 minutes or at most am going 15 in a 75.

But deadman is right. There are probably political and technical solutions to our current crowding problems. Population growth is beginning to slow down. Things will be fine if we come up with solutions that increase how efficiently resources are used. That is an "if" though.

Yes, we need to cull China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria.

No, not at all.

The question is more complex than our resident negationists believe. It depends on several factors like resource availability, technology development, wealth distribution or the carrying capacity of ecosistems. World population is estimated to be 10 billion by 2050, while the productivity of farming land in many regions across the globe will be reduced as the climate crisis gets worse. Draw your own conclusions.

The world can if efficiently handled, handle a population of 20 billion people. Problem is that a lot of people live in luxury and even if our population would decrease over time, that development countries citizens would increase their environmental footprint. You basically all need to live as Cubans if you want to house 20 billion people. In the system we currently have, the world is indeed overpopulated, and a two child policy would help especially in third world country where growth is enormous, and the population grows too fast to ensure growing welfare for those citizens.

It looks like a simple question, but the answer is much more complicated and difficult to answer. But if you want a short answer, the answer is no. But is it practically achievable, i don't think so.

I think the world is undoubtedly overpopulated.

The question is, can we solve overpopulation. If yes, how? I don't really have answers, don't like the "Chinese" model of the past, meaning max 1 child, if you want more than one, pay heavily.

Probably more information surrounding birth control in areas where contraceptives are less known could help?

Of course not. The Earth's carrying capacity is a function of the our technology and nothing more. We have more the enough arable land to feed a growing population and whats imperative is not that we abort third world babies but that we ensure free trade, economic growth and political stability continues to integrate and enrich the world which will in time, naturally, depress population growth anyways.

()

that's....rather disturbing

Overpopulation is a phenomenon that exists but it is one entirely determined by context. Along with governmental disasters (the two things have a nasty tendency to be... how shall we say... co-dependent as well) it is one of the main historical causes of famine, and also of emigration/immigration patterns. Rural Ireland in the first half of the 19th century, for instance, was overpopulated: there were more people eking out a marginal existence than could be supported by the landscape. There is a strong argument that Europe in general was overpopulated before the Great Famine struck in 1315. And with respect to Georgian England, the only reason why Malthus was wrong was because the facts changed: the agricultural revolution and the beginning of mass urbanisation rendered his calculations and assumptions completely irrelevant.

As you'll note from this, overpopulation is mostly a rural phenomenon and usually occurs at a local and regional level. Global overpopulation is a more problematic concept, as populations (and not just human populations) do not really live on a global scale; the global is only the aggregate of the regional and the local.

Biologists use the term "carrying capacity" to determine the maximum population size an environment can support, and it's a fairly well understood concept there. Of course, with humans it's very different from animals, because there are more complex variables involved in sustaining civilization and we are sentient creatures with the ability to control and forsee future problems. I will say that earlier predictions of human overpopulation have often completely failed to account for technological changes in agriculture, including both Malthus in the 19th century and the Ehrlichs in the 20th century.

The best way to rid humanity of the issue of overpopulation involves urbanization, education and the industrialization of agriculture. Poor and rural countries have large birthrates: children do a lot of work in smallholdings and family farms, and poor countries with lousy sanitation and healthcare (as well as low female education) will see many huge family sizes to compensate for deaths. This is not, as some people imply, a racial or cultural thing: we see the exact same family sizes as you see in Nigeria and Uganda today in peasant families in France and Spain many years ago.

I disagree.

If humans were really intelligent, they'd go back to agricultural lifestyle as it was back a couple thousands of years ago - but with the difference of using advanced technology only as a last resort (in cases of significant medical needs). But to not use it otherwise and focus on art, sport, mental training and craftsmanship instead.

The picture I have in mind here is the village in Star Trek: Insurrection, where Picard and his crew visit and first think the people there are "in need of help" because they are living agricultural and modest, only to find out that they have all the technology incl. the Warp drive available - but are not using it - because it would distract them from their modest lifestyle.

A very underrated movie indeed. Tells you a lot about today.

tfw all your theories are ruined and you are turned into a stock joke for All Time by... the fodder crop.

With all due respect, I think you are overly romanticizing agricultural societies. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live in the countryside or living off the fat of the land or maintaining simple pleasures. I could totally understand why people dislike urban life and prefer solitude. However, humanity's tendency to destroy nature with utmost efficiency did not begin with industrialization. Indeed, as far back as the initial spread of Homo sapiens as hunter gatherers, we saw the widespread elimination of apex predators. Primitive farmers pioneered the slash and burn technique of cultivation. a process which eliminated almost all of the old growth forests of Europe before the birth of Christ. Indeed, when you see slash and burn today in the Amazon or Sumatra, it tends to come from small farmers and ranchers. Likewise, there is a reason population growth is so massive in farming societies: it's because education is limited because all children are expected to help out rather than get educated.

No, though perhaps a few very specific locations are a bit too crowded. The problem isn't that there are too many people, it's wealth inequality and the systems in place to defend said inequality. The reason many people don't have basic necessities such as sufficient food, clean water, healthcare, etc. is due to corruption and greed, not a lack of resources.

The new UN projections were released recently and they have revised downward slightly their projections to 9.7bn by 2050 and stabilizing at 10.8bn in 2100, but with steady decline after that.

The reality is that the UN has not captured the rapidity of fertility drops in Latin America, Africa, or east Asia.  Nations with rapidly dropping fertility suddenly see huge slowdowns or even reversals in the fertility rate declines as soon as the UN projections start with all nations averaging toward 1.9 by 2100.  But while we might be at 1.9 in 2100, we’re bound to go lower in between....rates are falling too quickly everywhere.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next projections down to 9.5bn in 2050 and 9.5bn in 2100 (with a peak in between)


My answer is:  no, not overpopulated.  China’s pollution problem has likely peaked and India’s will likely in the next several years.  There will be big issues in Africa.  But keep in mind the African nations with the highest fertility and growth pains are some of the least densely populated in the world.  Many countries can and will triple their populations and they’ll still be far less dense than Europe or South/East Asia.

I don't know what are you talking about, to be honest. The question is actually very complex and I proclaim my ignorance. Thankfully there are scientists and researchers that make papers

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-010-0328-z

Thing is, not every country can be equally dense. You can't have a huge and densly populated concentration of people in places like Africa, where half the continent is desert (see: the Sahara) and another huge part is jungle (like in the Congo).

I don't doubt that we could replace more rainforests with industrial agriculture and hoard more people into monumental termite hills; the question is what kind of life that produces for man. I do think a definite trend to look out for will be the growth of groups like the Amish and the Haredi - not just because they'll be the only people left in their part of the world with positive birthrates, but because more and more people will be choosing to live in communities that set the terms by which culture serves them.

Africa doesn’t have declining fertility or population growth rates.

In fact, Africa is growing faster than ever before, also in real terms - not just in absolute numbers.

Several censuses (or censi ?) have shown from Egypt to Malawi and Madagascar, that their population growth rates in the past decade increased compared with the decade before.

Which is expected. That doesnt negate what Snowguy is saying. UN population growth estimates are far too simplistic when it comes to measuring fertility. Its why they keep having to adjust their estimates down.

The African population boom also cannot be solved with education alone in the coming decades (but of course it is the most necessary thing*), because African women who are educated still want to have 4 kids on average compared to 6-8 for uneducated women. So, even if all African women would have a tertiary education, the population there would still explode because of fertility rates twice the replacement level ...

* one of the main reasons why I support a foster child in Uganda with a monthly payment, for a good education.

They have often adjusted them upwards.

Not the most recent report. And i was under the impression the report before that aswell but it appears they actual adjusted the numbers up substantially. A mistake, i think.

Most of what i know on this topic comes from Jorgen Randers btw. 

That would only be the *second* most inhumane outcome to wish for then.

The world is not close to being overpopulated, with the current amount of land and the current level of technological development the world could easily support twice the population it has today of 7.7 billion, one can debate whether having more people is desirable in terms of what impacts it might have on biodiversity but physically the world population could multiply many times and there would be no issues with either food or energy supply, especially as the efficiency of energy production and consumption is rising so fast.

The people's lifestyle is more important than the number of people. One person who's wasting a lot of resources and is generally unmindful of the environment can do more harm than ten people who respect the natural boundaries. If every person on earth lived like the average U.S. citizen or like the average German, we'd have a big problem because our planet doesn't have sufficient resources for that. I'm not perfect either, but I'm trying to become better at using not more resources than necessary. Most importantly, we need to vote for politicians who understand the seriousness of the problem and act appropriately.

Have you taken a look at the real-estate prices in the megacities? Urbanization leads to an increase in real-estate prices, which in turn leads to an increase in homelessness.

There's plenty of affordable housing in the countryside, but the lack of jobs has been a problem there. However, I think the Digital Revolution is a big opportunity for the rural communities because it enables country people to work from home without having to move or commute to urban areas. Many employers in Germany are still sceptical about letting their employees work from home, but I think that's the way it will be. Of course, not everyone can work from home (e.g. nurses), but even people who don't work from home have advantages: Less crowds in public transport and less traffic jams during the rush hours, more vacant flats for rent.

Industrialization has caused a lot of suffering in the agricultural sector. Farm animals were bred to yield more and more meat, more and more milk, more and more eggs, more and more wool. Most of them live monotonously in cramped spaces. All that is detrimental to the animals' well-being and health. When customers walk into a supermarket and buy animal products, they don't see in what conditions those animals live.

I agree with you on that one. Being able to read and write enables people to broaden their horizon. I wouldn't be the person I am today if I couldn't have read about other people's ideas and opinions. I think it's a shame that the youth literacy rate (for people aged between 15 and 24 years) was just at 40% in Niger in the year 2012 (according to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics).

Farming is not the problem. The problem is that those people don't receive financial assistance from their governments. If the farmers knew that, no matter what happens, they will not fall below a certain standard of living, they would have some peace of mind and be more open to sending their children to school.

The economy is very important, too. A state cannot afford to provide a strong social safety net for its citizens if the economy on its territory is not functioning well. It's as simple as that. However, I think it's essential to also protect the environment. I'm concerned that African governments want to build new coal-fired power plants. From an economic point of view, I can understand that decision: Africa has a growing demand for electricity and coal-fired power generation is reliable and relatively cheap. However, from an environmental point of view, I know that the global carbon emissions must decrease drastically if we want to keep even larger areas of this planet from becoming uninhabitable. That's why I believe we should reach out to the African governments and offer to help increase the share of renewable energy in their energy mixes.

It is tremendously important that women have the same rights as men so that they have a say in family planning. Women are more likely than men to be victims of sexual violence, especially in wartime. This phenomenon is not limited to Africa. During World War II, mass rapes of women by soldiers occurred in Europe. Most of those crimes went unpunished. So it is necessary to fight for equal rights of men and women and empower victims of sexual violence.

My proposed solution consists of three parts:
1. Education
2. Sustainable economic development
3. Fight for equal rights of women and men, empowerment of victims of sexual violence

Mahazou Mahaman runs Animas-Sutura, an NGO devoted to family planning. He said:

"We [as Nigeriens] want to have children, because of social pressures, because it is expected of us. In our culture, people are judged by the number of children they have."

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/niger-sleepwalking-into-huge-population-growth/a-19084486

So it is partly a cultural thing. Having many children is a status symbol for Nigeriens, and you're looked down upon there if you have only two children. However, that does not mean Germans or other people are necessarily wiser. We just have different status symbols. For most Germans, their car is not just a means of transportation. I remember when I had a conversation with someone and she brought up the subject of cars. When I told her I don't want to own a car, she was speechless for a moment.

Yes,

The poorest sections of some countries are way overpopulated with little chance of recovery.

Examples: Bangladesh. China. India.

There does not appear to be a lot of forethought for planning a sustainable population.

and yet those countries all have fewer hungry now than they've ever had before.

At the moment, yes.

China? Have you, um, heard of something called the one child policy?

Which is proving to have all sorts of dire consequences for mainland China.