Poll
Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and therefore at or close to the absolute limit of what it can support?
NO
YES
UNSURE
62 total votes
Poll added by: James
Comments Showing 1-50 of 65 (65 new)
Overpopulated yes, at it's absolute limit no.
I agree with you, James, the world is not overpopulated, the problem is such a wretched distribution of food, of wealth, of the basic necessities of life. Much too much is concentrated in the hands of the few, of the horridly corrupt. What if we stopped these insane endless wars and used that money to put in a well, a roof over the heads of families, food on their tables, medical care? Would we not all sleep better? Would our young not die horribly on foreign soil? Something is intrinsically wrong with the way we educate, without compassion. The Creator, by whatever named called must be sickened as we torture and kill rather than feed in his/her name. It all sickens me. I recall many years ago in my classroom when a young man actually burst into tears about poverty, starvation and asked me WHY we allow that when it doesn't have to be. It is not overpopulation it is not teaching truth; it is bigotry; it is hate; it is, forgive us, religion; it is misogyny. Every child is precious and deserves a chance to grow into her/his potential. Can we even begin to imagine what those who have died of starvation, illness, war might have contributed to make a better world? And, James, it is also the main media that has been bought to represent the Robber Barons of today; it is curricula without room for thought or creativity, and a thousand other things. I recall, oh dear, decades ago at a teacher meeting where the speaker said: "Each child is of supreme moral worth." The Bible, which we too often hear quoted in defense of ugliness, says And God created man in his image; as well as, Thou shalt not kill. I do not see anything about the color, religion of the child; nor do I see any "except" after Thou shalt not."James, I have been working for so many decades for us to appreciate and welcome each child; it is a path, even in my senior years, that I cannot give up on. That young man was right: there is no justifiable reason; there is no overpopulation; there simply is the lack of will of people the world over to stand up and say: Teach all how to fish, to plant; cradle to grave health care; real "education" that opens minds rather than regurgitating alleged facts. There is the lack of will to accept that obvious: the all, us, the planet, are one. You and Lance are waging the good fight...hugs across all the big waters!
The world is not overpoulated. Someone claimes that the world is close to the limit, but it is not true. The energy production and food production technologies are very improved compared with the past ones now. We have enough resources to share them and live together. The problem is that there are some groups (political or industrial) which insist us to believe the world is at or close to its limit. They want almost all of the wealth in the world.
Remy wrote: "I agree with you, James, the world is not overpopulated, the problem is such a wretched distribution of food, of wealth, of the basic necessities of life. Much too much is concentrated in the hands..."Thanks Remy and I agree with all you say.
I completely agree. Ive studied environmental science and we talked about this topic quite a lot. The problem definitely is not overpopulation. The Earth is able to sustain more people than there are today. But the key element to that is voluntary simplicity. That does NOT mean we should go back to trees or caves. Nobody claims that we should starve or give up all the confort. It just means that people should think twice before throwing out food (I realy really dont understand how someone can throw out food? like when you dont eat it one day you just thow it out tomorrow?? weǘe never done this in our family. Either cook less or eat the meal on the second day. Whats the problem?) There are also TONS of perfectly good food wasted by supermarkets. There are many documentaries about this.
Also, what have we learned in last few decades is to always buy new things. Dont repair anything, just throw it out and buy a new phone, computer, TV... But this is something completely new in our society. Just remember our grandparents- they always want to repair the thing! We should think in the same way.
If we just did three things: distribute wealth equally, dont waste food and repair instead of buying new things as long as possible, there is definitely lot of space on this Earth for everyone.
Veve, Absolutely agree with you! Here in the country, the neighbor's pigs get the corn cobs, etc. We all compost. Most things are adaptable to a number of uses; we have a local flea market where people take things to sell at minimal prices that are not used anymore. If someone in the market is a bit short on the price of their order, someone else in line always makes up the difference. Cooperation, compassion at work.An old mop handle becomes a support for plants. It all just takes a bit of thought and conservation.
Takaaki wrote: "The world is not overpoulated. Someone claimes that the world is close to the limit, but it is not true. The energy production and food production technologies are very improved compared with the past ones now. We have enough resources to share them and live together. The problem is that there are some groups (political or industrial) which insist us to believe the world is at or close to its limit. They want almost all of the wealth in the world. ..."Very interesting observations, Takaaki, especially given that you are a scientist.
Remy wrote: "I agree with you, James, the world is not overpopulated, the problem is such a wretched distribution of food, of wealth, of the basic necessities of life. Much too much is concentrated in the hands..."love your comments ... so wonderful
The powers that be want us all to act like drowning men fearing and destroying our fellow men because it keeps us in a state which is easy for them to control. Fear of over population is just one of their tools.
I dare to say that the problem is that they want to encourage competition among people. For capitalism, it is essential that people believe in the survival of the fittest.In our society that means encouraging people to buy more and more unnecessary things in order to feel safe while creating uninhabitable environment for the poor countries. Just google pregnant woman and little children handling toxic waste from the USA and Europe. And where gets our pollution? Yes, it in the Himalayas!Im from Europe and Im wondering about how things are going to evolve with the immigrants running from Africa and the whole migration in Schengen zone and worldwide.
We are also standing before TTIP and its potential downsides (mainly lowering the customer and social standards for the employees here in EU as well as negative ecological effects-increased transportation and migration)
It seems that some big changes are to be expected that will definitely influence both environmental and social situation worldwide.
However, I dont dare to predict anything. I will just wait and observe what this will bring. The global political scene and natural mechanisms are so complex that it is almost impossible to say what is going to happen.
So, back to the original question: the Earth is big enough for people, but it is not able to sustain the system that we currently have.
Remy wrote: "Veve, Absolutely agree with you! Here in the country, the neighbor's pigs get the corn cobs, etc. We all compost. Most things are adaptable to a number of uses; we have a local flea market where pe..."oh, I like that soo much :)
Remy wrote: "I agree with you, James, the world is not overpopulated, the problem is such a wretched distribution of food, of wealth, of the basic necessities of life. Much too much is concentrated in the hands..."These comments are brilliant! I voted for over-population but that is not correct. We do need to overhaul the way we do things. Walk, rather than drive a car which uses fossil fuel. Recycle rather than throw things away and buy new. And if our brother has a need for clothing, food, we need to meet that need and reach out to others.
I believe the world is not overpopulated. It seems to be, because the poorest countries are naturally overpopulated due to a lack of state education and overspread corruption, but the population world growth is decreasing, contrary to the expectations of pseudoscientific theories, like malthusianism (in fact, Malthus inferred it based on the crazy reproduction of a population of rats, how likely he thought we are similar to that small animals...) and Darwinism...But, in a way that I still don't grasp, the supposed world elite keeps using and strongly spreading these ideologies. Are they irrationals or just evil?
Remy wrote: "I agree with you, James, the world is not overpopulated, the problem is such a wretched distribution of food, of wealth, of the basic necessities of life. Much too much is concentrated in the hands..."Your "Creator" created the world as it is with all is horrors and all you are saying is wishful thinking and Christian gobbldegook. The very essence of life itself consists in preying and being preyed on, independetly of the human species.
James Morcan wrote: "Takaaki wrote: "The world is not overpoulated. Someone claimes that the world is close to the limit, but it is not true. The energy production and food production technologies are very improved com..."If you enjoy living in a world with no wild animals, no wild spaces, not open frontiers but enjoy snuggling up in cramped conditions with billions of people like you eating mass produced food and if you do not care that we are facing a massive decline in variety of specis of flora and fauna, the big species extinction wave, then with all those "if"s accepted, the world is not overpopulated for you.
Mario wrote: "I believe the world is not overpopulated. It seems to be, because the poorest countries are naturally overpopulated due to a lack of state education and overspread corruption, but the population wo..."The rate of population growth has slowed down, yes, but world population is still increasing. Malthus, like Marx, undersestimated the achievements of human inventiveness in exploiting nature, but large parts of the world are already exhaussted by scientific inventiveness.
Takaaki wrote: "The world is not overpoulated. Someone claimes that the world is close to the limit, but it is not true. The energy production and food production technologies are very improved compared with the p..."The world is not Close to the Limit, it has past it.
The earth is not overpopulated. It's just crowded in places. Wars will thin out those areas.
Esdaile wrote: "The world is not Close to the Limit, it has past it..."If the world had past its limit to support life you and every other human being on the planet would already be dead...
Mario wrote: "I believe the world is not overpopulated. It seems to be, because the poorest countries are naturally overpopulated due to a lack of state education and overspread corruption, but the population world growth is decreasing, contrary to the expectations of pseudoscientific theories, like malthusianism (in fact, Malthus inferred it based on the crazy reproduction of a population of rats, how likely he thought we are similar to that small animals...) and Darwinism...But, in a way that I still don't grasp, the supposed world elite keeps using and strongly spreading these ideologies. Are they irrationals or just evil? ..."Again, very interesting observations from yet another scientist. I agree with all you imply about Malthusianism.
James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "The world is not Close to the Limit, it has past it..."If the world had past its limit to support life you and every other human being on the planet would already be dead..."
No. A person may have a fatal disease and take many years before dying from it.
Esdaile wrote: "If you enjoy living in a world with no wild animals, no wild spaces, not open frontiers but enjoy snuggling up in cramped conditions with billions of people like you eating mass produced food and if you do not care that we are facing a massive decline in variety of specis of flora and fauna, the big species extinction wave, then with all those "if"s accepted, the world is not overpopulated for you. ..."It seems you've never heard of countries like Australia (where I live).
Australia is a country about the same size as the entire continent of Europe - and yet we only have 23 million people (that's 3.5 miles per person). Contrary to the myth, much of Australia is habitable and there are towns, rivers and lakes all over the Outback.
So the heavily populated countries need to be balanced against the underpopulated or sparsely populated countries.
So, please, go ahead and give your theories as to why you think the planet is definitely overpopulated and why you think this debate we are having here is dumb.
Esdaile wrote: "No. A person may have a fatal disease and take many years before dying from it. ..."
Depends how you define it and perhaps we are getting into semantics, but I would have thought if the planet can no longer sustain life then it means there's no more life left.
But perhaps I didn't word the poll correctly (polls are tricky to word I find).
But anyway, submit your theories if you care to.
I tend to believe the world is not overpopulated, like many others seem to in this group at least, however I'm not closed minded nor do I think others are. So if you're so sure you have the ultimate truth on this matter feel free to share.
Thanks,
James
Actually, I think I did the math wrong regarding how many miles of space there is per person in Australia (I suck at maths!). And granted there are certainly uninhabitable regions of Australia, but still it's sparsely populated compared to the rest of the world and there's a LOT of wide open spaces here where you can drive a longggg way without seeing anybody.
I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?" For clearly we're not actually overpopulated, or else we would all be living in a London rush hour crush every moment of every day.There's loads of space. That's not a problem. We could build islands, extend coastlines, utilize currently uninhabitable spaces...
We're not overpopulated but we sure as hell need to sort out our distribution and use of resources.
The population of the planet has more than doubled in my lifetime. Clearly this is not sustainable. Already there are many signs of strain, in species extinctions, widespread homelessness and hunger, pollution, climate change, wars over resources, etc. There are other factors involved but overpopulation fuels them all. By any standard the planet is grossly overpopulated now. It is not just a matter of space.The chronic warfare between Israel and the Palestinians is an example of a conflict caused by population pressure over limited resources. Man begets but land does not beget. There will never be any peace in Israel without negative population growth.
James Morcan wrote: "Actually, I think I did the math wrong regarding how many miles of space there is per person in Australia (I suck at maths!). And granted there are certainly uninhabitable regions of Australia, but..."Undoubtedly correct but if they ever strike oil or gold or gas or for that matter water there you would be amazed how quickly that would change.
James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "If you enjoy living in a world with no wild animals, no wild spaces, not open frontiers but enjoy snuggling up in cramped conditions with billions of people like you eating mass pro..."Harry wrote: "I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?..."
Harry wrote: "I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?..."
"loads of space" a lot of it dried out-Australia and the Sahara or bitter cold-Siberia. It won't take human beings long to destroy the resources they get their hands on-Nigeria is a good example and it is hard to imagine but apprently true that not so very long ago most of Greece and most of scotland was dense natural for
est.
I never said the debate was "dumb". My claim is that you are propagating a conspiracist view that a power elite is plotting to depopulate a world which is not suffering from overpopulation and that overpopulation is a myth created by that elite. If I have misinterpreted what you said please tell me. The population is about 7 billion and is likely to double ina hundred years. The phenomenal rise in population in the last two hundred years (it has more than doubled in ym life time) is the major cause for the necessity of factory farming with all its attendant horrors (or dont they bother you?) the destruction of the wilderness, which is complete in Europe, complete in the most of the US, complete in India will be the way things are going complete in South Ameica within 25 years. Huge tracts of Russia and China polluted in the cause of mass production, which is definitely related to explisve human population growth and would not have taken place without it. Human beings have already driven a signficant number of animals and plants to extinction, largely, though not exclusively in relation to human expansion and human population increase. But the hundreds of species which have been driven to extinction is as nothing to the tens of thousands which are on the brink of being driven to extinction. But who cares? We all know, do we not, that one human life is ALWAYS worth more than any number of non-human lives. mAfter all, that is what the churches and scientists, in agreement on this one, never stop telling us. In many parts of Europe now it is physically impossible to escape from human noise and human intrusion-Germany, Holland and nearly all England quite impossible. There is not a square inch of large areas of the wrold where you can be sure of never hearing noise of human activity and seeing no human activity. More and more collapsed or collapsing ecosystems including human ecosystems, tribes, cultures, ways of life, crumbling before population growth and the expansion of global society. Struggles for natural resources especially land and water. Many wars wholly or in part caused by squabbling over dwindling resources. Huge transportation problems in most welathy countris, soaring housing prices. Even the so-called well-off nations only able to provide cramped living accommodation for most of their populations. The wold more and more intensively farmed and fished. China and India living (if you can call it living) examples of what burgeoning population realy means-everything sacrificed to mass production adn mass export in order to survive and the big losers of all, the hundreds of thousands of species of plants and animals not fortunate enough to call themselves Homo sapiens, degraded, tortured, driven to extinction or mass farmed to feed the iansatiable demands of our relentless species which will probably only stop once it has cancer like destroyed what it fed on and finishes by feeding on itself.
Harry wrote: "I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?..."Build islands? That sounds like fun. Who is going to do that and with what earth and where and in the name of what nation? Extend copastlines. The Dutch have been struggling with that for years and are working on a tredmill, the sea taking as much as they build. Your suggestions are funsounding but Utopian.
James Morcan wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "No. A person may have a fatal disease and take many years before dying from it. ..."
Depends how you define it and perhaps we are getting into semantics, but I would have thought ..."
Any intelligent discussion about overpopulation will involve semantics. "Over the limit" was the original expression used I think. I would understand the limit to mean the limit of sustainable human life given the current scientific knowledge and capability available. That is a significant "if" I concede, since as I have already said, many prophets of doom and distopia, Marx and Malthus, for example, or the Club of Rome, notoriously underestimated the ability of Homo sapiens to ever more efficiently exploit nature and sometimes underestimated the richness of resources yet to be exploited. However, the basic Malthusian paradigm is not rocket science nor is it crazy. It is common sense (human population all else being equal increases faster than the ability to feed itself) but it is common sense based on the hypothesis, quite wrong as it happens, that humans would not be able to dispreportionately to the increase in productive labour, increase food production per head of the population, which they were able to do. Had humans not done so, the species would suffered mass starvation. In the case of being "over the limit" I would accept that it is possible, even probable, for the species to further push the demographic sustainability limit, by finding new ways via genetic engeneering of increasing productivity and later maybe by colonising new planets, which I suspect may prove in the long run the only viable alternative to population decrease. Incidentally, you wrote, " So if you're so sure you have the ultimate truth on this matter feel free to share." Why, I wonder, did you say that? I thought this was supposed to be an exchange of views and ideas rather than the promulgation of an "ultimate truth"; do you wnat to promote an "ultimate truth" or was your remark intentionally ironical?
It seems we're all actually agreed that the world can't sustain itself through the current system of resources, so why can't we agree that we need to do something about it? Hell, I'm nobody and just thinking outside the box, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who have much better ideas than me.All we're arguing about is whether it's possible to achieve. I say we can.
Harry wrote: "I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?..."I am afraid all this is seriously flawed. Let's take what you said piece by piece:
"What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind in the future?" Who says that is what we are really asking? You do, but I totally disagree with your personal interpretation of the term "over-population". Firstly, it completely leaves out all life except human life, but for non-human species it looks very different. Secondly, it is only you who say overpopulation is just about sustaining human beings. You say nothing about the quality of life. Human beings do not want to just survive or be sustained. That is yesterday. They are much more ambitious now. They want to have fast cars, flatscreens, fridges, summer holidays, clean air, cheap food, i pods, bungalows, airconditioning, clean water.. They do not just want to survive in Middle Age peasant fashion. That means we are not talking about just human sutainability or survival but of human population growth not being a problem so far as everyone living a "First world" life style is concerned. That is rather an impoortant difference.
You write about "our2 this and that. Who is "our"? In any discussion about over population or resources the word "our" is an extremely slippery one: does it mean all human beings, all life, the "West", (whatever that is but people like using the term), people with an acceptable standard of living, all humans today, all humans for ever, the better off, the better off countries....?
"For clearly we're not actually overpopulated, or else we would all be living in a London rush hour crush every moment of every day."
So your definition of over population is people being made to be living in a London rush hour crush every moment of every day?? Well if THAT is your definition, then indeed the world is not overpopulated, but by such a tongue-in-cheek definition, which sounds like a good definition of Hell itsself, and which presumably you do not mean seriously, nobody would want to live and actualy couldn't live; they literally couldn't move their hands to feed themselves, as aynone who has been in the LÖondon rush hour crush will know. Well, you see with a moment's reflection that that definition is not serious. It does raise the question though: who defines what is "over populated" or "under populated/not over populated" in the first place? One striking fact about the proponents of "there is no population problem only resources distribtuion problem" school of thought, is that you can be sure that said school of thought never wants to say what an optimal human population actually would be, whether in London, in England or in the world as a whole.
Technologies have limits, and come at a cost. We are on a collision course. Human beings are grossly overpopulated, and so are cows and dogs. See a book by Iris Nowell called "The Dog Crisis."
I wonder if wars are created to depopulate, big corporations are allowed to use and abuse inhabitants of countries because some feel they are to populated anyways and don't have the resources to sustain their burgeoning populations. Who is to define what is an acceptable standard of living? Is it in terms of harm to others and the environment or the plastic standard of the day in the place you live? Which forms of food are produced en mass by greedy corporations but don't feed efficiently with their nutrition, destroy the soils and their management harms everyone? The cause of all the problems with human consumption is greed. We will believe in all the nonsense about over population if the fear about our own survival is triggered. The less we waste the more we have. I believe creative compassionate thinking will get us well.
One of our problems as planetary caretakers is that too quickly we tend to become adamant, even abrasive,in any discussion of any problem. Taking ultimate stands on our respective positions precludes any real discussion,let alone problem solving. Corporations running wild with power without any viable control contribute to negative conditions.Joe citizen is not out there polluting on a huge scale, but yes,can be guilty of rampant consumerism, buying into the 'you need this to be cool' advertising,accepting medications with a three page list of negative,even deadly, side effects. Standard of living is important but so is even the smallest of homes with a non-leaking roof,running water,food on the table,education, and yes, acceptance of others cultural mores, faith. Everyone housed,fed,educated is the first stepping stone to enhanced quality of life, and yes is so much better than living in sewers,drinking polluted water, brushing flies off your dying babies.Gobbledegook applied to positions of others is not only rude but certainly not proactive in any positive way, and incidentally compassion is a basic part of any religion, although not practiced on a very wide scale. It is that kind of in your face attitude that helps breed both civilian and religious wars. Regulation of business, a curbing of heretofore seemingly insatiable consumerism would help the distribution of food, clothes, etc. Marx,Malthus are long dead and we need to stop digging them up and come up with new paradigms!
Donna wrote: "I wonder if wars are created to depopulate, big corporations are allowed to use and abuse inhabitants of countries because some feel they are to populated anyways and don't have the resources to su...""Greed" is a popular mantra to make people feel good and knock those they don't like while considering themselves to be personally quite virtuous; but actually most people are not greedy in the sense of guzzling everything at the table, which is what most people think of as greed. If you mean enjoying a barbecue, a few pints at the local, hmm and how much did the barbecue cost? What you call "greed" is mainly the response of large companies like Bayer or Monsanto to the opportunities presented to them. "Greed" is a word loved by the churches and which is misleading. "Greed" is an easy way of shifting the blame because people who use the word do not consider themselves personally "greedy" but if you eat a lot of meat each week for example then in terms of human resources you are "greedy", again you would not be if there were not so many people around wnating to eat meat every week too! I think a "drive to growth" or a "drive to profit" more accurate. Still, it is the case that many countries put profits before sustainability. I agree with you there. They are in the bsuines sof making profits. They are not charities. Should they be controlled? Defintiely. But never forget they exist in response to demand and nurture the demand. If there were no mass populations however, there would be no multinational companies.
Remy wrote: "One of our problems as planetary caretakers is that too quickly we tend to become adamant, even abrasive,in any discussion of any problem. Taking ultimate stands on our respective positions preclud..."Marx and Malthus are not dead in terms of their ideas nor will they be so long as people have brains to think with. To say they are I find quite abrasive :) You wrote something important "Joe citizen is not out there polluting on a huige scale." No? As an individual clearly he can only pollute on a small individual scale and he does that in spades! Walking to work, if I am early I try to collect a small amount of the plastic and polysterene (paper is too much to bother with) rubbish which is thrown out of cars every day over a couple of hundred yards:Macdoinalds cartons, cigarette packets, plastic cups and bags you name it. In the last few years it has become standard where I leave to drop your used paper tissue in the street after use. The waste of paper in offices is carried out as though paper were infinitely producable out of thin air (well I suppose it is so far as most office workers are concerned) Multiply that by millions and it is clear that Joe Citizen DOES pollute massively. Joe citizen also tends to pick the cheapest solution to all offers of food and doesnt care much about the ecological footprint, so he pollutes in that way too. Joe citizen doesn't put pollution very high on his priority list in elections so he pollutes in that way too. I cannot remember how many plastic cups are used once on airlines in the USA every day, but I remember being staggered. Joe Citizen causes massive pollution by going off on holiday in a jet plane, by owning a car, sometimes two cars, sometimes even three. You talk of people wnating (having a "right to"?) hosuing. To what standards? Something better than the standards currently prevalent in urban China or would that be sufficient? Please define "insatiable consumerism". Everyone seems to think that other people are insatiable consumers but not they. The corporations are allowed by government to milk the needs of Joe Citizen and create new ones. This might work all right with small populations but not with billions of people. That is where we come back to overpopulation, which is what we unquestionably have and by "we" I mean the human species as a whole, Homo sapiens.
Donna wrote: "I wonder if wars are created to depopulate, big corporations are allowed to use and abuse inhabitants of countries because some feel they are to populated anyways and don't have the resources to su..."If there were fewer people wasting there would be less wasted, right? Who exactly is greedy and what is the limit which anyone must digress to become "greedy" according to you? Corporations can only be "greedy" if there are people "greedy" enough to be their customers and keep their shareholders happy.
If wars are created to depopulate they are not very good at it! The result of most wars is an upsurge in birth rates (not sure why but it is so). People want to have their cake and eat it. Everywhere they say that something called "greed" is the problem, and/or that the "distribtuion of resources" is the problem they are much less willing to say what optimal living standards and consumption without those "greedy" corporations and with a "fair" distribution of resources would actually look like.
P.J. wrote: "Technologies have limits, and come at a cost. We are on a collision course. Human beings are grossly overpopulated, and so are cows and dogs. See a book by Iris Nowell called "The Dog Crisis.""I agree with you but allow me to make a small correction to your English: the planet is over populated and human beings are overpopulating it. Human beings themselves cannot be overpopulated (except maybe with mites or other parasites:))
Esdaile wrote: "Harry wrote: "I think that one big problem with the overpopulation topic (I voted no) is its very name. What we're really asking is: "Can our current use of the world's resources sustain humankind ..."Well you'll just have to forgive me that I have different definitions than you (which is partially why I mentioned definition in the first place). I'm clearly an uneducated buffoon when I remark such simple things as: Overpopulation has two meanings: 1) There are too many people. 2) We don't use resources rightly to sustain the people. And I believe if we solve number 2 (which COULD be done IF we wanted it) then we solve any problem re. number 1.
I like to look at things simplly. I'm an idealist yes. I see that as a good thing. If we all put nurture before greed, it'd be easy to change the world for the benefit of everyone. Of course, you'll say the world WON'T be like that. I simply say it CAN.
Y'know- today is World Refugee Day and it's been reported there are more refugees in the world today than at any other time.
Go ahead, keep playing your XBoxes and turn away.
I admit we are all a part of the problem and that is the most difficult thing to overcome, our own hypocrisies. I would like to solve the worlds problems but I focus on my own wants and needs and survival. Do I think the world would be better without one person, namely me, no! I feel that my spirit ect... is a valuable addition to life. That goes for everyone else too. It is allowing the fear inside that causes us to do and think all those negative things. So far all the attempts at depopulation have failed because they have failed to convince the general populace that it is necessary for the survival of a select few. Funny how each person imagines they will be one of those select few. We keep getting confused by the so called ones in the know with evidences, proofs why we should do such and such, believe such and such, generation after generation practices atrocities on each other out of fear for our survival. Time to wake up and stop allowing ourselves to be programmed into the killing machine. We don't have to eat, believe or do a lot of things.
Article by Alex B. Berezow who is the editor of RealClearScience and holds a Ph.D. in microbiology. http://www.realclearscience.com/artic...The World Is Not Overpopulated
By Alex B. Berezow
"An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times declared the world to be overpopulated and even compared humanity to a cancerous growth. This reasoning is not only disturbing, but is almost certainly incorrect, as well.
The world, indeed, has a lot of people. By the end of 2011, there will be nearly 7 billion people living on the planet. But population growth rates will not sustain at those levels. An analysis by The Economist describes how each subsequent billion will take longer and longer to achieve, until population growth eventually plateaus at around 9 billion people by 2050.
"A 2003 assessment by the United Nations concurs. The UN projects, under its medium-growth scenario, that the human population will remain relatively stable at 9 billion until the year 2300.
The reason is that birth rates are naturally falling around the world. The current growth in world population exceeds the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, but there are good reasons to believe that growth will slow down in the future. As countries become more technologically and economically advanced, people naturally choose to have fewer children. Also, there is a link between increasing female education and a declining birth rate.
"Europe is the poster child for this phenomenon, where the total fertility rate is below 2.1 in all 27 EU nations. The problem is so bad in Russia, which may shrink by 25 million people in the next 40 years, that demographers are referring to a population crisis. This will put an enormous strain on Russia's economy as the government struggles to care for its aging population.
The authors also contend that "reproductive freedom" benefits all of humanity. But does it? Research shows that families around the world, particularly in Asia, selectively abort female infants. This "gendercide" distorts natural male-female ratios in the population. In some provinces in China, the ratio is perversely skewed in favor of boys, with 130 male births for every 100 female births. Obviously, this will have dire consequences for society.
"If population poses a problem, it is likely due to distribution, not to growth. After all, only so many people can fit on the coasts of China, India, and the United States. There are many wide-open spaces for the population to expand. The trick will be to figure out a way to incentivize responsible growth, not to discourage it entirely.
Finally, the authors claim that poverty results from overpopulation. While this might be partially correct, many other factors contribute to poverty. China, with a population of approximately 1.3 billion, has entered a period of skyrocketing economic growth. India, with a similarly sized populace, is also slowly working its way out of poverty.
"Instead of focusing on controlling population growth, a better way to tackle poverty is to help solve humanity's basic problems. Infectious disease, corrupt governance, and lack of access to global markets are Africa's biggest problems. When these devastating issues are corrected, African countries could experience rapid economic growth in the same way as did the Asian Tigers.
When the world becomes a more prosperous place, the "problem" of population growth will largely take care of itself."
'Course, if the population DOES stop growing, that will be the end of Capitalism which is based on perpetual growth - why invest your capital if you are not getting a compound return? :-)
That's the point! The world is a rich and prosperous place but it depends on what a person is looking for as to what they see. I recently watched a documentary about a poor man in India whom over the course of many years has planted an island with trees from seeds he collected and cuttings he took. He has saved the island and is now a hero. Similar to another show entitled 'The man who planted trees' which shows how a man over his lifetime to an ugly parched landscape and planted acorns he collected which grew into forests which helped to fix the micro climate which brought people and prosperity to the region. We each have the ability to create incredible changes for humanity and the planet, to offset and heal the damages, and bring prosperity to all.
Diz wrote: "'Course, if the population DOES stop growing, that will be the end of Capitalism which is based on perpetual growth - why invest your capital if you are not getting a compound return? :-)"An astute point. Capitalists are obsessed with growth. As Marx noted, the capitalist who ceases to grow is doomed. Capitalism is driven by growth. But I never thought about associating this obsession with growth with the popular head-in-the-sand belief that problems of famine and want are only distribution issues and have nothing to do with demoraphics. Thank you.
Lance Morcan wrote: "Article by Alex B. Berezow who is the editor of RealClearScience and holds a Ph.D. in microbiology. http://www.realclearscience.com/artic......"
No surprises about The Economist. I do not think there has ever been anything published in that paper favourable to the notion that the world is over populated, ever. If there was, I missed it. This is slightly ironical, since Le Monde Diplomatique has called The Economist the "moputhpiece of the global elite" and it is the "global elite" whoever they might be, who are according to some persons, deliberately manufacturing a myth about world population! A few comments regarding this review: Asian Tigers. Oh those famous Asian Tigers. About the only tigers you will get to see in Asia these days since the animal answering to that name has been all but completely wiped out to make way for population growth or oops I expect I should say economic growth, because it sounds much les snegative. "China, with a population of approximately 1.3 billion, has entered a period of skyrocketing economic growth." Yes, mass slavery, the maltreatment of animals and the mass slaughter for the meat and leather industry pitiless unending and vile, on acale whihich is difficutl to grasp, but I forget, those who claim that there is no human overpopulation issue never talk about non humans who are the big losers in this game. The "its all a myth invented by the media" school of thought don't give a monkey's (excuse bad pun) about animal suffering in the wake of prodigous human population expansion. Ok forget the animals, if they don't count for you and only Homo sapiens matters. The more of them the better? Let's look at the condition of humans in wonderful China and salubrious India then. Do you want to enjoy the benefits of being part of the "Chinese miracle" yourself? A wage slave ina Steve Jobs workshop? Living in a cramped towerblock. The air filthy, the water filthy, democracy a tragedy and farce in one, the country so desperate for resources to feed its swarming slave masses that it is grabbing for Africa, threatening its neighbours, destroying what is left of the forrest in SE Asia, threatening to grab the water from Vietnam and Laos. Of course fighting over water has nothing to do with over population does it? It is all "an unfair distribution of resources" as the Churches, or what's left of them never stop telling us. I have just a few fundamental questions to pose all those for all those who insist that there is no human population growth problem: 1) Do non-humans count for you or not? Will you not agree that non-human species are being devestated by population growth or do you just not care about that one way or another? Question two is there any maximum human population for the world to sustain or do you think it is totally ok if human populations went on rising for ever? In other words is there a desirable population ceiling in your eyes? Question three: what kind of standard of living do you think current and future human populations can realistically attain to? I mean, for example, do you think that everyone can live in a house in the futuree or will they have to go on living in flats? Will it be ok for people to eat meat and if so, how much? Can you give some idea, if all resources are fairly distributed, of what Mr. nice world citizen's life style is likely to be. I am especially intrigued by the answer in relation to living space. Do you imagine everyone will be able to live in an urban bungalow? If China built onyl houses for its masses, there would be no room for its slave factories. Last question-leaving aside population growth, perhaps everyone can agree that human populations are concentrating to a considerable extent in huge conurbations (Istambul up from a million to is it I think 15 million in a few decades!) at the expense of rural areas. In what way will urban populations ever be induced to return to the land or is that fantasy? In which case, does population growth mean everyone has to live in cities? And do you think that is ok?
You make a good point about animal populations Esdaile, and I find the destruction of habitat and species to be a crime of the most heinous sort. Though, I don't think anyone's mentioned that they don't care about that, y'know.
No you are right, they did not say they did not care about it but that does suggest it does not even appear on their radar screen, since they do not think of mentioning it, but thank you for the supportive comment. I certainly think it is a very important aspect of any debate on human population growth.
On that aspect I completely agree with you Esdaile.
The overpopulation myth (part 1) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
The overpopulation myth (part 2)
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Also, these two images (below) provide a good visual of how many underpopulated or sparsely populated large sections of the Earth there are:
https://www.goodreads.com/photo/group...
https://www.goodreads.com/photo/group...
Okay, that's enough from me...
Looking forward to hearing the opinions from others!