Uncomfortable question: Is the world overpopulated?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:00:04 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 1944 times)
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2019, 06:23:31 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 ecosystems. 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)

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

Quote
Feeding the world’s growing population is a serious challenge. Food insecurity is concentrated in developing nations, where drought and low soil fertility are primary constraints to food production. Many crops in developing countries are supported by weathered soils in which nutrient deficiencies and ion toxicities are common. Many systems have declining soil fertility due to inadequate use of fertility inputs, ongoing soil degradation, and increasingly intense resource use by burgeoning populations. Climate models predict that warmer temperatures and increases in the frequency and duration of drought during the 21st century will have net negative effects on agricultural productivity. The potential effects of climate change on soil fertility and the ability of crops to acquire and utilize soil nutrients is poorly understood, but is essential for understanding the future of global agriculture. This paper explores how rising temperature, drought and more intense precipitation events projected in climate change scenarios for the 21st century might affect soil fertility and the mineral nutrition of crops in developing countries. The effects of climate change on erosion rates, soil organic carbon losses, soil moisture, root growth and function, root-microbe associations and plant phenology as they relate to mineral nutrition are discussed. Our analysis suggests that the negative impacts of climate change on soil fertility and mineral nutrition of crops will far exceed beneficial effects, which would intensify food insecurity, particularly in developing countries.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2019, 08:33:54 PM »


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.

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).
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2019, 10:11:05 AM »

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.
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 #28 on: September 14, 2019, 12:25:32 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.

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.
Logged
AngryBudgie
Rookie
**
Posts: 80
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2019, 12:29:47 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.

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.
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 #30 on: September 14, 2019, 12:35:12 PM »

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2019, 01:00:39 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.

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.

They have often adjusted them upwards.
Logged
AngryBudgie
Rookie
**
Posts: 80
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2019, 02:26:47 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.

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.

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. 
Logged
Serenity Now
tomm_86
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2019, 10:14:23 AM »

Of course.

There needs to be some kind of pandemic that reduces the world population by about 99.99% to a sustainable level of 800.000 (Green minded) people again, to undo all the damage that the human cancerous species has done to the planet. Earth would then be able to relax and after a few thousand years, most plastic would be disintegrated and CO2 levels back to normal. The damage that the human species did to the fauna though cannot be reversed any longer.

Loved your work as the villain in the last Godzilla movie.

I should note that by "pandemic", I mean something made by mother nature - not by people. That would be man-made genocide. If nature itself (almost) wipes out humanity, I'm fine with it.

That would only be the *second* most inhumane outcome to wish for then.
Logged
Annatar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 976
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2019, 12:38:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Sozialliberal
Rookie
**
Posts: 247
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2019, 03:03:13 PM »
« Edited: September 20, 2019, 07:19:09 AM by Sozialliberal »

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.

The best way to rid humanity of the issue of overpopulation involves urbanization, education and the industrialization of agriculture.
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.

The best way to rid humanity of the issue of overpopulation involves urbanization, education and the industrialization of agriculture.
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.

The best way to rid humanity of the issue of overpopulation involves urbanization, education and the industrialization of agriculture.
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).

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.
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

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.
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.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,662
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2019, 08:46:47 AM »

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.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2019, 09:14:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2019, 04:58:37 AM »

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.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2019, 11:26:01 AM »

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.

China? Have you, um, heard of something called the one child policy?
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 #40 on: September 24, 2019, 07:48:50 PM »

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.

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.
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 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.