Poll

Why, when it is suggested that the world is overpopulated with people, do some assume that that means that billions/millions/hordes of people need to be killed off? Why do people think the word "depopulate" is synonymous with "exterminate" and "eradicate"?

Depopulate: verb. substantially reduce the population of (an area).

That says nothing about mass murders and wide-spread carnage, it's not even implied with words such as "within a short amount of time" or "violently and horribly. close your eyes." Depopulation can be over many years/generations, it doesn't have to be *now* or involve killing at all.

How do you reduce a population without killing off many? You have less babies. That's it, simple.

And please, that doesn't necessarily mean government regulations on how many children can be cranked out by each couple/city/year/whatever. It doesn't mean taking away the freedom to choose. It doesn't mean not getting into heaven because you produced less than a school full of children. It means being more thoughtful.

The world is definitely overpopulated if you look at it from the standpoint of how much Earth and how many animals we've destroyed in order to sustain growth. We can't even grow enough food to feed everyone. We have to MANUFACTURE food (does this sound weird to anyone else??), and to do it cheaply and quickly we get low quality and nutritional value. And then we throw it away anyway! ($100,000 A DAY in the L.A. school district. That's ONE district. EVERY. DAY.) Not to mention all the other fantastic points you guys made here regarding the issues that have arisen from the increasing human population. I'm straying from my point though..

People ARE taking notice. More women than ever are deciding against motherhood. And more educated people are more likely to have fewer children. (These are facts, look it up!) Think about that: More educated people are more likely to have fewer children. So let's educate people. This isn't necessarily referring to a formal education, because let's face it- that takes money and a lot of people/cities/countries don't have money. It's really about awareness.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have kids and have as many as they want. I'm saying perhaps through educating the masses on humanity's destructive impact and our obvious inability to substantially provide for our huge numbers, people will understand better and make decisions accordingly. The more people know the better decisions they make.

Crystal wrote: "People ARE taking notice. More women than ever are deciding against motherhood. And more educated people are more likely to have fewer children. (These are facts, look it up!) Think about that: More educated people are more likely to have fewer children. So let's educate people. This isn't necessarily referring to a formal education, because let's face it- that takes money and a lot of people/cities/countries don't have money. It's really about awareness.
..."

Hey Crystal - that is already happening regarding education and population levels. As education becomes more available, this will only lead to less large families with some independent women deciding never to become mothers (as you point out). Which is why most experts predict world population growth will slow in the coming years and then slow drastically within decades.

You're completely right, James! I'm wondering though if population growth won't just slow, but slow to the point of the overall population decreasing.

Crystal wrote: "You're completely right, James! I'm wondering though if population growth won't just slow, but slow to the point of the overall population decreasing."

There actually is a school of thought that suggests that's what might happen, Crystal i.e. populations will not only stagnate but decrease as people (especially women) become more educated. I haven't looked too much into that theory, but maybe someone should start a new topic headed "is the world underpopulated?" :)

One idea I had was if I'm wrong about overpopulation and the planet really is about to explode any day now, and we need to depopulate immediately, perhaps we should start with getting all the members in this poll to meet in one room. Given how explosive the reactions have been so far, something tells me that'd be an instant way to depopulate half of us immediately as I sense it could quickly become a catfight ;)

But seriously, I'm not for any type of population controls or depopulation measures (apart from benign ones like investing in education) and as someone who supports civil liberties it goes against all my instincts i.e. it's governments telling women what to do with their bodies. Sounds like a form of eugenics to me - or if not very closely related to eugenics.

Besides, the jury is still out on whether the world actually is overpopulated. Debates are going on in the media and just like in this poll (so far) sometimes as many or more seem to disagree with the theory than agree with it.

Therefore, this is an important debate to be having.

Underpopulated? Some facts:

1. We are adding more than 220,000 people to the planet EVERY DAY (net value). That's more than 220,000 people added to the world food demand.
2. It took 200,000 years to reach a global population of 1 billion people.
3. We hit a global population of 2 billion 100 years after that.
4. Now, we add another ONE BILLION people to the planet every 12 years.

How is this a good thing? What are the benefits of having such huge amounts of people? Please, anyone, a list of benefits because I'm hard pressed to find even one. Once the list of benefits exceeds the list of problems and harm, in number or worth, then I'll argue we have an underpopulation problem. Until then, I have to argue the opposite.

Crystal wrote: "Underpopulated? Some facts:

1. We are adding more than 220,000 people to the planet EVERY DAY (net value). That's more than 220,000 people added to the world food demand.
2. It took 200,000 years ..."

Actually, my underpopulated comment was mostly a joke (although some regions of the planet are underpopulated, of course...but not really the planet as a whole).

There are many theories about numerous benefits of higher populations.

You'll find various articles, books and essays written by respected professors, historians etc, including the following:

"Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, professor of economics at Humboldt State University in California, observes in her book The War Against Population that:

1. No more than 1-3% of the Earth's ice-free land area is occupied by humans.

2. Less than 11% of the Earth's ice-free land area is used for agriculture.

3. Somewhere between 8 and 22 times the current world population could support itself at the present standard of living, using present technology.

4. This leaves 50% of the Earth's land surface open to wildlife and conservation areas.

The lower limit of 8 times the current population (about 44 billion) has been considered as being perfectly workable.

According to Dr. Kasun, "better yields and/or the use of a larger share of the land area would support over 40 billion persons."

Former Harvard Center for Population Studies Director Roger Revelle estimated that the agricultural resources of the world were capable of providing an adequate diet (2,500 kilocalories per day) for 40 billion people, and that it would require the use of less than 25% of the Earth's ice-free land area.

Revelle estimated that the less-developed continents were capable of feeding 18 billion people, and that Africa alone was capable of feeding 10 billion people, or twice the current world population, and more than 12 times the 1990 population of Africa.

In addition to the fact that many new strains of food have been developed that can boost food production, there are other indications that food would not be a problem.

Dr. David Hopper asserted that the worlds "food problem" does not arise from any physical limitation on potential output or any danger of unduly stressing the environment.

The limitations on abundance are to be found in social and political structures of nations and the economic relations between them. In fact the planet, during its least populous years, suffered from hunger and famine. It was only when state political controls receded in the late 19th century that hunger also began to recede.

With the rise of Communism, welfare states, fascism and international corporate capitalism (all forms of Darwinist Socialism), many of the destructive controls preventing adequate growth and distribution of resources returned.

Since absolute cooperation and free-market planetary economic is counterproductive to global socialist and capitalist goals, it is quite apparent that the myth of overpopulation is a form of attack on this same free market, even though no more lawlessness and evil use of men and materials exists than under Socialism.

It is curious that many densely populated countries with relatively free economies are thriving, and are seldom mentioned in the "over-population" debate, while sparsely populated nations with oppressive governments are.

Taiwan, with a population density of five times that of China, produces 20 times as much Gross National Product than China. Similarly, Singapore, with a density of 11,910 per square mile, enjoys a per capita GNP of $8,782, while Ethiopia, with a density of 101 per square mile, has a per capita GNP of $121.

The real problem is that big government is the greatest obstacle to the social advancement of the human race."

Maybe when Antarctica thaws, we'll find we have an ancient alien country of cities just waiting to be populated...

Not sure where I got the above article from sorry as I lost the original link, but here are some other recent articles on the subject:

Mawuna Koutonin On The Myth Of “Overpopulated” Africa http://www.naij.com/461600-mawuna-kou...

Population myth: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/...

Is Overpopulation a Legitimate Threat to Humanity and the Planet? (NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/...

The Myth of Overpopulation http://www.americanthinker.com/articl...

Taking on the Overpopulation Myth (The Washington Times) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem (NY Times) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opi...

These MAINSTREAM media articles prove it ain't just this group that's debating whether the Malthusian theory of Overpopulation is true or not.

Crystal wrote: The real problem is that big government is the greatest obstacle to the social advancement of the human race."

The real problem is that 'big government' has been taken over by trans-national corporations whose sole motive is profit. It's a bit difficult to spot where the Federal Reserve ends and Goldman Sachs begins. https://youtu.be/eEV3zJbahvM

With all do respect, James, how is anything on that list a benefit? How is having more people than we currently have on the planet more desirable than less people?

I have no doubt that the planet can FIT more people on it, I'm just disgusted with what people are doing to the planet IN ORDER to fit everyone. Destroying wide open wild spaces and forcing animals to go extinct because of destroyed habitats is just the most obvious betrayal. If these aren't concerns, there wouldn't be wild life preservation efforts and national parks protecting it. There's not a problem as far as LAND MASS is concerned, the problem lies on the impact the human population has on the planet, our fellow animals, and ourselves. Just looking at the amount of garbage we create is crazy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average American produces 1,600 pounds (726 kg) of garbage a year. This only takes into consideration the average household member and does not count industrial waste or commercial trash. And we don't know what to do with it, so we toss it in the ocean and dig great big holes into the Earth and bury it. Hell, why not shoot some into outer space, there's plenty of room out there! And that's just our garbage issue, not anything else that was mentioned by other members earlier in the thread (air and water pollution, Fukushima, etc.).

The first article you listed above by Mawuna Koutonin actually made my point quite nicely. Most of the article was focused on creating awareness of efforts to reduce the "scary" AFRICAN population, which is total rubbish. Not in that it isn't happening, because it may well be, but for me in what I'm arguing, no single race/nation/etc. should be expunged or stifled, humanity AS A WHOLE needs to reduce its numbers. While Koutonin was arguing that the people of Africa have a much smaller carbon footprint than most other countries, he said this:

"The USA consumes 25% of world resources while its population is under 5%. And the West as a bloc represents less than 15% of the overall world population while consuming over half of world resources and being responsible for 80% of the world climate change factors.

When it comes to carbon dioxide emission (‘carbon footprint’) per person on the global scale, one person in the US emits about 20 tons every year, one person in the European Union emits 11 tons, one person in China emit three tons, and one person in the sub-Saharan Africa emits a maximum of 300 kilograms. Which means the African carbon impact is 66 times less than American, and 36 times less than European."

He goes on, and while he's arguing against curbing the population of Africa when it's using far less resources than other countries already, all I can see is the overall destructive power of humanity. Instead of arguing over who takes a bigger sh*t on the planet, how about we stop using it as a toilet.

http://birdhouse.org/blog/wp-content/...

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/i...


I understand your other points guys. I completely agree that we need to work on the social aspect of sustaining our outrageous numbers and maintaining/improving the quality of life. I also agree that extreme avarice of corporations, shareholders, and the government also contribute to keeping people down. But we're also doing it to ourselves.

Maybe a little comedic relief. I stumbled across this last week and thought it was perfect. Note, Lewis CK uses harsher language in his standup shows. This is a 2 minute clip on what we've been talking about..

https://youtu.be/WrahQpIWD08

Crystal wrote: "With all do respect, James, how is anything on that list a benefit? How is having more people than we currently have on the planet more desirable than less people?

I have no doubt that the planet can FIT more people on it, I'm just disgusted with what people are doing to the planet IN ORDER to fit everyone. ..."

Crystal, I was repeating a school of thought on the theorized benefits of large populations, not necessarily saying they mirror ALL or even most of my beliefs. My understanding is those who subscribe to that school of thought believe that higher populations can in the long-run fuel (via greater demand) all sorts of positive changes including new technological inventions (such as technologies to positively impact the environment like clean energy and pollution cleaning tech). The technologies developed in the industrial revolution are said to have been a result of big increases in populations and there in supply and demand. And the idea is this can happen again - except this time the technologies will be cleaner and greener. For example, many believe the world's two most populated countries - China and India - have successfully worked their way of poverty and Third World status (neither are classed as Third World anymore and are recognized as developing nations) primarily due to their high populations and massive economies. Conversely, lesser populated Third World countries, such as most African countries, are struggling to become "developing nations" which according to this school of thought could be due to their much lower populations and relatively small economies.

In the 20th Century, a century dominated by the West and by English-speaking nations as you know, the US also benefitted from being the most populated country in the English speaking world, I think. I can't imagine if America (now 300 million+ people) only had a population like say England's (70 million), Canada (about 30 million I think) or Australia (20-odd million) that it would have become so prosperous or its citizens would have had so many opportunities. And if roles were reversed and Australia, Canada or England had had been the country with 300 Million people I think that country would have been the one to come out on top (economically speaking).

As to all your other points, I completely agree 100% - like you I despise inequality, pollution, cruelty to animals and general disregard for Mother Earth. All the concerns you have are concerns every thinking person should have in this era.

However, I believe to find a solution we first need to work out what exactly the problem is. If it's not primarily overpopulation and is something else like political elitism or lack of fair distribution or a combination or other issues, then that in my mind would be an important discovery to make...

Diz wrote: "The real problem is that 'big government' has been taken over by trans-national corporations whose sole motive is profit. It's a bit difficult to spot where the Federal Reserve ends and Goldman Sachs begins...."

Good points, Diz.

James Morcan wrote: "those who subscribe to that school of thought believe that higher populations can in the long-run fuel (via greater demand) all sorts of positive changes including new technological inventions (such as technologies to positively impact the environment like clean energy and pollution cleaning tech)."

Yes, I've come across that one too. Not really sure it adds up - perhaps mistaking quantity for quality. I suspect that it is not so much the overall population numbers but more the population density. Things happen in cities. Countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa have pretty thin population densities and numbers and are some of the poorest in the world. You can look at it either ways. But either assumes that the current economic system is the measure of all things.

As for large populations being able to dominate economically, the US currently has the largest economy but a country of rather less than 70 million was able to dominate a large part of the world for quite a long time. It's currency was also the world's reserve currency, as the dollar is now.

I've recently finished The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold us Well-Being. Absolutely fascinating read. Rather like an Adam Curtis documentary. He traces the philosophical roots of much of the current underlying assumptions within political discourse back to a mix of Bentham's Utilitarianism and that branch of psychology called Behaviourism. Behaviourism treats people as laboratory subjects, like rats. It's better if people don't speak - just study their actions, facial expressions and so on. Brain scanners and fMRI scanners in particular, promise to show the chemical reactions that go to make up our thought processes. Advertising companies were the first to pick up on all this, way back in the 1890's as many young students flocked to Germany to learn the latest psychological experimentation techniques.

Couple this with Utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest happiness of the greatest number and you can see the possibilities for manipulation. Thus we get 'nudge' theories - nudging people by positive and negative stimuli to perform the 'right' action. This does, of course, pre-suppose an 'elite' who can judge what the 'right' action is.

But how do you define 'happiness' as well? Back in the 60s', everything went a bit wibbly-wobbly and we ended up with post-modernism. Basically, everything became relative - anthropology, linguistics and other areas - all succumbed to a relativisation of values, stemming, in some ways, from the 60s obsession with individuality. In this uncertain world, how are you supposed to work out what 'happiness' is? The answer is to treat everything statistically, effectively in a behaviourist manner. Marketing surveys, Mass Observation and now, of course, t'Interweb.

This all links in well with the 'free market' idea that it's just individuals going about seeking only their own best interests that creates the best possible outcome in the market.

So - you have politicians anxious to use these behaviourist techniques to, basically, stay in power, you have marketing companies using these techniques to try to influence the market, then there're the trans-nationals that employ the marketing companies and, just so they can all believe that what they are doing really is in the best utilitarian interests of everybody (or at least nobody unimportant), you have economists who honestly believe their theories are scientific and back up this belief by their use of the same techniques. So it all ends up in the same relativist trap that it thought it was escaping from, really.

What has this got to do with a debate about over-population you may ask? Well, if the population has to grow in order to keep the market growing and the market is our only measure of 'happiness' then yes, let's keep going! But if, perhaps, it is quality/density (rather than quantity/area) that makes the difference, perhaps a different measure of happiness could be devised? One that is based on localities and communities, within and between cities, neighbourhoods. It's worth recalling Murray Bookchin's 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism' perhaps, and the development of some of his ideas by David Harvey in 'Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution'. At that point maybe we could work out for ourselves what an optimal world population might be, where 'optimal' is not simply defined in economic terms.
:-)

These cited facts:
1. "No more than 1-3% of the Earth's ice-free land area is occupied by humans".

"What does "occupied by humans" mean? A road is presumably not "occupied by humans", a road verge, a petrol station? A house? A swimming pool? A farmed field, a wood of connifers with tress for the paper industry, miles of trees in military formation, planted exactly and mechanically? All this is presumably "unoccupied by humans" The statement is meaningless without a very clear defintion of the term "occupied by humans". About 90% of England is "occupied" by humans according to my definition, which would be land directly or indirectly being used by humans. You can argue that my defintiion is too broad, but that's the point-a definition with 1-3% only makes sense where very tight criteria are used, so tight as to be useless.

2. "Less than 11% of the Earth's ice-free land area is used for agriculture."
A large part of the earth's surface cannot be used for agriculture, eg the Sahara, also large parts of hoplessly polluted China and Russia. Also large parts cannot be used for agriculture simply because they are built up for roads, cities etc

3. "Somewhere between 8 and 22 times the current world population could support itself at the present standard of living, using present technology."
That is rubbish frankly and whoever says so probably knows it is rubbish. Between 8 and 22 alone points to the fact these figures have been just pulled out of a hat.

4. "This leaves 50% of the Earth's land surface open to wildlife and conservation areas".
Tell that to those who desperately try to protect the last wildernesses form being destroyed. By no defintion at curent levels of population, let alone any other is 50% of the earth's surface available for wildlife and conservation, let alone with even more billions of humans.

"The lower limit of 8 times the current population (about 44 billion) has been considered as being perfectly workable."
Been considered by "respectable authorities" and "experts" who are working to an agenda, the agenda of growth at any cost, workable menaing that people do not feel crowded can enjoy holidays in the sun, have a few square fet to live on?
These fugures defy experience, defy common sense, defy all available data and must be there to serve an agenda, there is no other way that they could be put forward without a tongue firmly in someones cheek.

A bit off point but intrigues me: WHY are some people so keen to have more billions of people onthe planet in any case? What is the point of wanting this? Who wants billions more Homo sapiens? What is the big plus of having more humans? Do some people so love human beings that they just cannot have enough of them?

Diz wrote: "I suspect that it is not so much the overall population numbers but more the population density. Things happen in cities. Countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa have pretty thin population densities and numbers and are some of the poorest in the world. You can look at it either ways. But either assumes that the current economic system is the measure of all things.

As for large populations being able to dominate economically, the US currently has the largest economy but a country of rather less than 70 million was able to dominate a large part of the world for quite a long time...."

Thanks Diz - there are a lot of well-thought out and sophisticated ideas in your post, I sense.

Many great things do indeed occur in populated cities, you're right. Just look at all the revolutionary ideas, inventions, discoveries and other developments that've come out of big cities like London, New York, Paris and Tokyo.
I certainly agree you cannot measure everything economically and also that it's only quality of life that matters.
I personally think 'optimal' population levels are a pointless discussion as no way would Americans or Brits or Australians (or citizens of many other democratic countries) ever allow Chinese-style population controls - we are too free thinking and independent to ever be controlled by governments in that manner (and that's our strength). And of course, first it needs to be worked out if there actually is a population problem or not - according to this poll and debates occurring in the mainstream media the jury is still out on that one, me thinks...

Good point also about the extreme poverty of the thinly-populated Sub Sahara regions.

Thanks for the book recommendations - those look like great titles I'll check out sometime.

Best,
James