Why don't people realize that overpopulation is a myth?

[HillGoose]

The whole idea was invented by anti-capitalist eugenicists who don't believe in technology or progress and wanted a reason to kill "undesirables"

[Mr. Smith]

Carrying capacity being exceeded is no myth. Resources do not go on forever.

[dead0man]

Carrying capacity being exceeded is no myth. Resources do not go on forever.

they said that in 1972, world population has almost doubled and FEWER people are starving today.  Of course there IS a maximum number of life forms supportable at any given point in time, but we ain't close to it at all AND we're slowing down in growth.

Over population is only a scary thing to people that are scared about everything, there is no rational reason for regular people to worry about it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The world population will stabilize and level off before 2050.

[RFayette]

The world population will stabilize and level off before 2050.

This, but not because the Earth couldn't theoretically support more people.

[Tender Branson]

The world population will stabilize and level off before 2050.

No, that's absolutely not the case.

Population projections have recently been updated higher, mostly because of an expanded base in Africa and because fertility rates are not falling as fast there as expected.

Most African countries still have growth rates of over 3% with an ever growing population.

It is likely that the population will be 10 Bio. by 2050 and rise more in the coming decades - mostly because of ignorant, corrupt political leaders (see Erdogan and Co.) and Islam (which is used by these leaders and groups to promote breeding like rats). And to a lesser extent fundamentalist Christians.

[Mr. Morden]

The world population will stabilize and level off before 2050.

No, that's absolutely not the case.

Population projections have recently been updated higher, mostly because of an expanded base in Africa and because fertility rates are not falling as fast there as expected.

Most African countries still have growth rates of over 3% with an ever growing population.

It is likely that the population will be 10 Bio. by 2050 and rise more in the coming decades - mostly because of ignorant, corrupt political leaders (see Erdogan and Co.) and Islam (which is used by these leaders and groups to promote breeding like rats). And to a lesser extent fundamentalist Christians.

Man, that's a lot of blaxicasians.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The world population will stabilize and level off before 2050.

No, that's absolutely not the case.

Population projections have recently been updated higher, mostly because of an expanded base in Africa and because fertility rates are not falling as fast there as expected.

Most African countries still have growth rates of over 3% with an ever growing population.

It is likely that the population will be 10 Bio. by 2050 and rise more in the coming decades - mostly because of ignorant, corrupt political leaders (see Erdogan and Co.) and Islam (which is used by these leaders and groups to promote breeding like rats). And to a lesser extent fundamentalist Christians.

Hilariously native Turk fertility has cratered in the Republic. All the growth is coming from Kurdish areas and other minorities.

I might effortpost on the likelihood of letting eleven billion people live on earth but eh.

[bagelman]

People in the first world, US and Europe, learn about population growth and imagine their own cities and town being overcrowded and local resources - and the world at large of course - being stretched to the limit. In reality, all the population growth is in Africa and a little bit still in Asia. Indeed, in most (!!) of Europe and in my part of the USA a bigger problem is population stagnation or even decline.

Empty buildings that were once homes. Boarded up storefronts. Old buildings, the sign of former prosperity. Decline. Sidewalks overgrown with grass, turning into gravel. Meth kitchens. Potholes. Graffiti that's a few years old and has faded with time. Dirt and grimy feel. On top of it all, rust, rust everywhere you look - coating every metal surface and mixing in with the dirt and concrete dust.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?  That was instituted in 1979 when the world population had less than 5 billion people.  Now we have approximately 7.6 billion people.  It took 200,000 years to reach the first 3 billion and just four decades to more than double that number.  The environment is decaying and will continue to as people continue to breed, migrate to cities and suburbs, and contribute to pollution.

Plus, even if the population stabilizes by 2050, it might just be too little, too late by that point.  For now I'm hanging my hopes on advanced science and technology, which may or may not have diminishing marginal returns as scientific progress becomes more costly and difficult.  But for that we'll just have to wait and see.

Otherwise, humans should make a conscious effort to curb their populations (preferably through more people embracing the childfree movement like some Millennials are - or, if you must have a family, adopt but do not procreate) and work to sustain their economies:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

soil errosion was down 43% between 82 and 97 (and getting better)
more trees now than we've had in 100 years
a slight uptick in emissions in 2017, but the general trend is a positive
fist stocks are recovering

[HillGoose]

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?  That was instituted in 1979 when the world population had less than 5 billion people.  Now we have approximately 7.6 billion people.  It took 200,000 years to reach the first 3 billion and just four decades to more than double that number.  The environment is decaying and will continue to as people continue to breed, migrate to cities and suburbs, and contribute to pollution.

Plus, even if the population stabilizes by 2050, it might just be too little, too late by that point.  For now I'm hanging my hopes on advanced science and technology, which may or may not have diminishing marginal returns as scientific progress becomes more costly and difficult.  But for that we'll just have to wait and see.

Otherwise, humans should make a conscious effort to curb their populations (preferably through more people embracing the childfree movement like some Millennials are - or, if you must have a family, adopt but do not procreate) and work to sustain their economies:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that sounds like something a commie would say

[SWE]

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?

This argument assumes that a government would only pursue a policy because it's rational to do so.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's your reasoning for believing these two facts are correlated? Especially given that nations showing rapid population growth, such as India, don't use up nearly as many resources, nor contribute anywhere near the amount of pollution as nations that aren't showing the same levels of population growth, such as the United States.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right that suburbs are bad news, but if you want to reduce pollution, moving to cities is actually a good move.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?

This argument assumes that a government would only pursue a policy because it's rational to do

Seriously. And beyond that assumes that it was not a China-specific problem or any other “thing”.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?

This argument assumes that a government would only pursue a policy because it's rational to do so.

The Chinese government started promoting birth control and delayed childbearing in the 1960s because population growth had begun to outpace food supply.  They stepped up the family planning campaigns even after 15-30 million people had died in the Great Famine (which wasn't even the worst famine China had experienced) in order to reduce demand for resources and alleviate other problems.

The one-child policy prevented 400 million births and China still needs to bolster its food supply by attaining land overseas.

If overpopulation is a myth, then why did China impose the one-child policy for 36 years that was only recently changed to a two-child policy?

This argument assumes that a government would only pursue a policy because it's rational to do

Seriously. And beyond that assumes that it was not a China-specific problem or any other “thing”.

China is a good case study, but the past two decades have seen an estimated 200 million hunger-related deaths worldwide, mainly in countries with unstable populations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's your reasoning for believing these two facts are correlated? Especially given that nations showing rapid population growth, such as India, don't use up nearly as many resources, nor contribute anywhere near the amount of pollution as nations that aren't showing the same levels of population growth, such as the United States.

India also has deforestation and agricultural degradation, overexploitation of land, loss of biodiversity, air pollution, and water pollution.

That population growth inevitably leads to environmental degradation is not controversial.  The hitch is whether nature can adapt and if technology will mitigate (or worsen, if not used judiciously) the damage before it's too late.