Uncomfortable question: Is the world overpopulated?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:02:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Uncomfortable question: Is the world overpopulated?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Uncomfortable question: Is the world overpopulated?  (Read 1942 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 09, 2019, 02:11:37 AM »

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?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 02:23:28 AM »

Yes. Free birth control and abortions would help.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 08:42:57 AM »

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.
Logged
Lord Halifax
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,304
Papua New Guinea


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2019, 08:50:19 AM »

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.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2019, 08:51:33 AM »

k
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2019, 09:38:11 AM »

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.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2019, 10:17:43 AM »

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
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2019, 11:58:42 PM »

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.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2019, 02:03:05 AM »

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.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,595
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2019, 05:34:11 AM »

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??
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2019, 10:42:01 AM »
« Edited: September 10, 2019, 10:51:13 AM by Edgar Suit Larry »

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.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,849
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2019, 11:16:44 AM »

Yes, we need to cull China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2019, 11:30:27 AM »

No, not at all.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2019, 11:49:59 AM »

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.
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2019, 12:16:39 PM »

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.
Logged
arevee
Newbie
*
Posts: 7
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2019, 01:23:56 PM »

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?
Logged
The Free North
CTRattlesnake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,567
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2019, 07:17:55 PM »

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.

Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2019, 10:37:50 AM »

that's....rather disturbing
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2019, 10:48:08 AM »

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.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2019, 11:43:44 AM »

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.
Logged
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
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2019, 11:54:46 AM »

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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2019, 12:13:40 PM »

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.

tfw all your theories are ruined and you are turned into a stock joke for All Time by... the fodder crop.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2019, 12:18:06 PM »

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.

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.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2019, 12:32:13 PM »

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.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2019, 01:24:29 PM »

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 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.