Is the world overpopulated?

[LearningTOfly 0]

Shrinking rainforest, reduction in animal habitat (ex. in the case of bears in N. America), air pollution, the battle for oil, poverty in general, the fact that the people in Western civilizations have so much free time on thier hands to worry about/ think up nonsense ideas...

Are we exerting more pressure on this planet than it can handle? Maybe the doozy flu that's evolving will re-establish maintainable populations? Maybe we're just toast...

[Duckwater 0]

Fly to Buenos Aires, at night.

You are over the Amazon for hours and you do not see a light ANYWHERE.

Hell, even the continental US is pretty damn sparse when flying over it.

--

[Zenister 0]

not yet.. but it soon will be...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[sinker 0]

Quote

not yet.. but it soon will be...

really? when every human being on earth could fit in the state of Texas w/ 1,000 square feet per person (and there would still be 1.3 trillion square feet left over)?

when every single human being on earth could fit w/in the confines of Jacksonville, FL, if each person had a 1.5 x 1.5 square to stand in? the issue isn't how much room there is...

"but much of the world is uninhabitable" you say? well, so was much of the southwest in this country until people risked their lives during the Great Depression building the Hoover dam. look at my city of birth, Phoenix, a frickin desert! Millions of people living -quite nicely at that- in a damn desert.

when you fly over the United States, how much empty land do you see?

true, parts of the world has a population density that is frightening at first blush. however, isn't the real issue about the unjust distribution of wealth to the masses in "overpopulated" countries?

blaming over-population for things like hunger and poverty and other forms of human suffering is often just a subterfuge for other agendas like those of Planned Barrenhood.

since overall habitable land mass isn't the real problem here (and neither is the sheer volume of food produced each year), it would be far more productive to attack problems of corrupt governments, wars that disrupt food supply and unjust social systems that keep wealth from those who need it most.

m

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Breezejunky 0]

Whoa.....


I'm speechless.

Can you expand on why huge (in your world) expanses of uncultivated land is of such irrelevance to the impact of the exponentially growing human population that you think we are over reacting (for lack of a better way to describe your post) - in a little more tangible terms please?

Must excuse....can't tell if the booze magnifies the the lack of depth of the previous post or magnifies the befuddledness (is that a word?) of mine.

I'm no tree hugger but I do get the concept of restraint.....

Except at Dairy Queen....

Sigh

[Bdog 0]

given it's own resouses, the earth can only support 10 million people. the present world population is 10 billion people. a good read "the tenth generation" by robert mendenhal.

_________________________________________

---Future Darwin Award recipient-

[wmw999 2,149]

I'm sure that technology will advance, and food production will be possible for the raw numbers of people available.

I also believe that people will feel more and more crowded, and want to defend their "personal space" more and more. More violence, and people being defensive.

There's quantity, and quality. Just because one is smart and likely to rise to the top of a system (or at lease close enough to be insulated from the bad parts) doesn't mean that the system is right or good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sinker 0]

Quote

given it's own resouses, the earth can only support 10 million people. the present world population is 10 billion people. a good read "the tenth generation" by robert mendenhal.

can you explain further? this doesn't seem to make sense to me, since we're not w/o food now, w/ some 6+billion folks around.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[LearningTOfly 0]

Quote

can you explain further? this doesn't seem to make sense to me, since we're not w/o food now, w/ some 6+billion folks around.

For the most part, we are not without food here in North America. But look around- every year, more and more cookie cutter neighborhoods are built on the outskirts of cities- eating away more and more of the farmland- meaning less and less food for either us or livestock. It has to end somewhere...

I do not know about the rest of the world in detail, but I recall hearing a program on the CBC radio that was takling about poverty or something, and one thing they mentioned in a fairly dramatic fasion was that every six seconds or so someone (mostly kids) dies from starvation somewhere in the world.

We're just lucky enough to be here in America where we can go to the grocery store and take it for granted. It's like the weather- when it's raining overhead, we figure it's raining everywhere. We're not starving here, so how could anyone be starving anywhere...

[sinker 0]

We're just lucky enough to be here in America where we can go to the grocery store and take it for granted***

i couldn't agree w/ you more... I actually want to take my wife and kids on a mission trip to honduras to see first hand what true poverty really is. I think it would go far to change our mindsets. I know this is a little tangent, but I was actually hoping the W2K scare would have panned out... not b/c I want people to suffer, but I think it would be good for us to learn to live w/o all of our modern conveniences. They aren't bad, mind you, but as you intimated, we can so easily get too dependent on them...

and it's truly sorry that kids starve every day, or that anyone starves at all. it's tragic.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[LearningTOfly 0]

Quote

but I think it would be good for us to learn to live w/o all of our modern conveniences. They aren't bad, mind you, but as you intimated, we can so easily get too dependent on them...

Agreed as well- we've got it incredibly good- I feel guilty thinking about it sometimes- what we have and they don't- and likely won't. Or about how lazy we've become (in general).

Or, thinking about the fact that we have the liesure time here to write on such a forum and discuss these issues- while the chaos continues, and we can only imagine, and sympathize- and in the end, are more or less powerless.

[smiles 0]

Quote

Is the world overpopulated?

questions.....questions........questions


What are the symptoms of overpopulation?
famine, deepening poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and resource depletion??

The prefix "over" implies a standard. For example, "overweight" implies a standard linked to height. By what standard is the earth overpopulated?? Dense cities are often surrounded by nearly empty countrysides. For overpopulation to be real, there must be conditions that are undesirable and unmistakably caused by the presence of a certain number of people. If such indications cannot be found, we are entitled to dismiss the claim of overpopulation??

My son read the book “My Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn, and became very interested in facts indicating- re: increased food production doesn’t feed hungry, only fuels population explosion…the story was about:

Quote

unrestrained population growth and an obsession with conquest and control of the environment are among the key issues of our times. Quinn also traces these problems back to the agricultural revolution and offers a provocative rereading of the biblical stories of Genesis-

Searching online together in less than ½ hour we came up with many sources of information and even more questions re:

Quote

-relationship between food and population in which food availability drives population growth, and population growth fuels the impression that food production needs to be increased. The data indicate that as we increase food production every year, the number of people goes up, too. With every passing year, as food production is increased, leading to a population increase, millions go hungry. Every year the human population grows. All segments of it grow. Every year there are more people growing up well fed and more people growing up hungry. The hungry segment of the global population goes up just like all the other segments of the population. We are not bringing hunger to an end by increasing food production; we are giving rise to more hungry people.

-common sense tells us that per capita share of environmental riches as population numbers increase, and waste disposal necessarily becomes an ever greater problem???

-as population grows geometrically and available resources increases arithmetically, then it becomes apparent that at some point the resources will be insufficient to maintain the population??

-the more people there are, the less amount of land there is per individual??

-does one consider the food needs of each person but also the energy requirements of each person??

-does it make sense that when people move in, then environment moves out??

-the world population doubles every 43 years??

Sociologists talk about the "green revolution". The cause of this revolution was the invention of hybrid grains. With these grains third world farmers were able to increase production by two to three times. The event was touted as the solution to world hunger. Within the next five years, birth rates increased in proportion to the increased food production. Was the technological effect nullified by population??

Do people have the "right to life" and the "right to reproduce" and will these ideals lead to the end of life for the entire population??

-the population explosion is not due to the rampage of birth rates. Birth rates throughout history have remained steady. The culprit is falling mortality rates due to nutritional and technological advancements??

Population growth is the result of the plunging death rate and increasing life expectancy worldwide??

The growth in human population has been more than met by increases in the production of food and other resources, including energy??

Famine in the 20th century is a political rather than an ecological phenomenon. We are not running out of resources, and real prices of raw materials are lower than ever before. Only the price of labor consistently rises??

Population growth and economic growth are compatible??
-poor nations suffer from not too much population but too much government??
-if the developing world evolves into a liberal market order, it will find that it can have both reproductive freedom and prosperity??

Are starving, emaciated Africans evidence of overpopulation??

Since 1985 we have witnessed famine in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia. Those nations have one thing in common: they are among the least densely populated areas on earth. Although their populations are growing, the people there are not hungry because the world can't produce enough food. They are hungry because civil war keeps food from getting to them. The very sparseness of their populations makes them vulnerable to famine because there are insufficient people to support sophisticated roads and transportation systems that would facilitate the movement of food??

In the 20th century there has been no famine that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, or political retribution??

-the number of people affected by famine compared to that in the late 19th century has fallen--not just as a percentage of the world's population but in absolute numbers??

Is food is abundant??
Since 1948, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, annual world food production has outpaced the increase in population. Is this due largely to technological advances (the "green revolution") that have provided better seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and methods of farming??

The only obstacles to agricultural progress are the impediments created by governments??
Since permitting market incentives in agriculture, India has been come a net food exporter and agricultural production in China has boomed??

Is the earth capable of feeding many more people than are now alive??

The catastrophists' claim that the population explosion causes famine, poverty, disease, and environmental degradation founders on a single undeniable fact: the global plunge in the death rate??

All over the world, people are living longer. More babies survive infancy than ever before, and more people are reaching old age. Can this be squared with the assertion that living standards are falling, that food production is declining, and that the air and water are more dangerous to human life??

Can human comfort be estimated by human health, and by the length of human life??

The increase in the number of human beings has not occurred because women are having more children than before. The increase is chiefly the result of the falling mortality rate??

The increase in life expectancy at birth has been equally dramatic
but is there a simpler explanation??
As economies develop and people become better off materially, they have fewer children?? That phenomenon, known as the demographic transition, is well established in demography. It explains what happened in the West, where today the fertility rate is 2.0 or lower--below replacement rate. The demographic transition makes perfect sense. In preindustrial, agricultural economies, children provide farm labor and social security (sons care for their elderly parents); children are wealth. In a developed economy, parents invest resources (for education and the like) in their children; they are an expense. As societies become Westernized, and as modern consumer goods and services become available, people find sources of satisfaction other than children. So they have fewer kids.

A falling infant-mortality rate reduces a society's fertility rate??

Is lengthening life expectancy in the developing world evidence that population growth cannot be increasing poverty??
The West grew rich precisely when its population was increasing at an unprecedented rate. Was that revolution made possible by silicon computer chips and threads of glass (fiber-optic cables)?? Both are made from sand--one of the most abundant substances on the planet. Thanks to human ingenuity, a common substance that was merely part of the landscape has become a tool of revolutionary human advancement.

People don't deplete resources. They create them??

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[billvon 2,435]

>Are we exerting more pressure on this planet than it can handle?

Not if we do it wisely. The earth can handle us; heck, it could handle four times the number of humans we have now - if and only if we use it wisely. If we limit the waste we produce, and the food we eat, and the energy we consume, then we will be able to live on this planet a long time. If we do our level best to destroy it, we will eventually succeed - and in the process destroy ourselves. It's up to us.

[JackC 0]

Quote

The earth can handle us; heck, it could handle four times the number of humans we have now

The world population is increasing at the rate of 150 people a minute. I'm talking net figures, not just births. That's a jumbo jet full, extra, every 3 minute. The recent Indian Ocean Tsunami stopped the clock for only about 24 hours before the population clock ticked on.

The world may be able to support 10 or 20 billion people, but what happens when we reach saturation point and the population is still growing at the rate of 5 or 10 people a second?

[Tonto 1]

Quote

the present world population is 10 billion people.

Wrong. 6.7 Billion.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Zenister 0]

if all you care about is the simple human per square foot you are correct...it wont be a pleasant existence but people will 'exist'... not much else will..

i'm talking about actual sustainability and quality of life..

over population is the 5th horseman.. he holds the door open for the other 4 and its closer than you think...

and land mass is certainly a going to be a problem as well unless you dont mind drowning in other people's sweat.... oh wait you dont support any form of birth control...

i see now...nevermind...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[LearningTOfly 0]

Quote

oh wait you dont support any form of birth control...

This might be one of our fatal flaws... it's accepted that the population of the world is growing at an exponential rate. When you draw a graph representing an exponential function, it has asymptotes either at zero or infinity. The part where it goes to infinity is the problem here . Not that the world can support that- of course war and whatnot will break out long before that as people fight for what little food, land and resources are available, which will bring the population down a bit.

But, back to the point... birth conotrol support- it seems China has gotten on the ball with it, despite criticism- although there are still customs (here in America also) of having six or more kids. My understanding is back a few hundered years ago, six kids ensured that the family will continue if a few give up the ghost early (whether it be to war, sickness, etc)- but now, with medical treatments (at least in Western countries) two kids should be plenty (two- just incase one takes up skydiving or something of that sort). Why families still have four or five kids beats me... ( I am allowed to hijack my own thread, right?)

[sinker 0]

Quote

if all you care about is the simple human per square foot you are correct...it wont be a pleasant existence but people will 'exist'... not much else will..

i'm talking about actual sustainability and quality of life..

over population is the 5th horseman.. he holds the door open for the other 4 and its closer than you think...

and land mass is certainly a going to be a problem as well unless you dont mind drowning in other people's sweat.... oh wait you dont support any form of birth control...

i see now...nevermind...

how typical of you to go to the sarcasm/mockery card. why do you even bother replying when all you have to say in response to my posts is disdainful?

the landmass example of texas had to do w/ illustrating just how MUCH land there is in the world comparable to the number of humans on it. of course I wasn't advocating all of them moving to Texas, it was an illustration. too myopic to see that are you?

spread those people out to the habitable places of the world and there are copious amounts of land for food generation, human living, etc. so you wouldn't have to worry about your "quality of life" issues. as billvon said, the world can sustain many more people than it has right now, provided she is used/respected as she must be.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 2,435]

>too myopic to see that are you?

Let's not degenerate into personal attacks here.

[sinker 0]

Quote

birth conotrol support- it seems China has gotten on the ball with it

yeah, they're on the ball, all right... forced abortions if the family already has one child, enfanticide, if the first child is a girl (yes it really happens), since the fam typically wants a boy to carry on the family name/traditions, etc. yep, they're on the ball indeed.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

>too myopic to see that are you?

Let's not degenerate into personal attacks here.

is asking/suggesting that one is short-sighted on an issue a personal attack? it certainly seemed to fit based on zen's reply to me... not to mention his constant sarcasm and mockery of my beliefs.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 2,435]

>is asking/suggesting that one is short-sighted on an issue a personal attack?

Yes. You cannot call someone myopic, idiotic, stupid, a loser etc EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE.

[sinker 0]

hmmm... my beliefs can be openly mocked, which they often are, but I can't say someone is short sighted. What if I changed the words and say that I thought Zen was missing the forest for the trees, or not seeing the picture in the right focus. (Certainly, given his silly, out of context reply, this is the case.)Those are certainly judgements, but are those also attacks? They certainly mean the same thing as being myopic, although they are more wordy. Is myopia just too "negative" sounding, given that it is associated w/ a medical problem?

how can you equate myopia w/ idiocy or stupidity or being a looser, bill?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 2,435]

>What if I changed the words and say that I thought Zen was missing the forest for the trees . . .

"I think your comment misses the forest for the trees" - discussion of the topic and OK

"You are myopic" - not OK

"Your religion does many bad things" - OK

"You are a pervert" - not OK

[sinker 0]

how about this... what you SAID is myopic. Or, you seem to display characteristics that are consistent w/ myopia, given your response to my post.

i'm finding this a little amusing that you're taking me to task about this word, myopia, given the derision I receive from Zen about my faith. It's pretty silly really to not be able to say someone is short-sided in response to their post, that really only serves to mock my beliefs. ah well...

-the artist formerly known as sinker