Overpopulation in 2023

[mistermack]

I just did a search, it's seven years since the last post on overpopulation (on an overpopulation thread) so why not take a look at the latest? 

This is from Bing : 

And here's a youtube clip of how India is coping with a bit of crowding : 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by mistermack

[TheVat]

What's especially worrisome is that as pop increases, other trends mean arable land is decreasing and habitable land also decreasing.  And, to make a trifecta of awful, fisheries are being depleted, and with more seafood becoming too contaminated to eat.

Some of the crowded southern border of the US is related to eco-degradation in Central America, with regions that are no longer sustaining those populations.  This onslaught of desperate refugees from the tropics is being repeated all around the world.  

I would not mind if Pope Francis, an unusually progressive pontiff, were to speak up on the matter.  Rhythm method is not going to cut it.  

[Genady]

Is the Earth overpopulated?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Is the Earth overpopulated?

I don't assume that. I think the human population is underutilized, mismanaged, and kept barely above slavery in many parts of the world. I think the outrage of overpopulation is being manufactured by those who hoard resources and demean the labor of people.

Rather than giving the resource hoarders more control over our reproduction, I'd like to try more cooperation and less competition, and try to distribute resources more efficiently and effectively for a larger percentage of the population. No more food rotting on docks because there's no profit in getting it to starving people, which will make them healthier and more able to continue their own prosperity. I'd like to start a cycle like that, because we know where the "overpopulation" cycle leads.

[mistermack]

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

Is the Earth overpopulated?

Well I think it most certainly is . But if you think the only important species is humans, then maybe it's not. 

Maybe I'm odd, but I value other species, and hate to see animals like Gorillas reduced to a few thousand, while we are nearly 8 billion. 

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I value other species, and hate to see animals like Gorillas reduced to a few thousand 

I too value other species and hate to see that.

But it does not answer the question.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

But it does not answer the question.

Well, since there's no fixed objective threshold for overpopulation, I can only answer for myself, which I did.

When we are causing mass extinctions, I think we are too many.

[Genady]

28 minutes ago, mistermack said:

When we are causing mass extinctions, I think we are too many.

I don't see how it follows.

(We are causing mass extinctions ⇒ we are too many)

[iNow]

The number of humans is far less relevant than the way we use and exploit resources in aggregate 

[CharonY]

The issue is often that folks do not clearly define what overpopulation is. Some refer to the concept of carrying capacity, but folks disagree what the measures of it are or should be. And a big part of it is of course not the number of folks, but what folks consume. And rather obviously, folks in highly industrialized countries with high standard of living consume way more than those in developing countries. I.e. just looking at population numbers is only a part of the story. That being said, we keep repeating the same arguments, and without really adding more information/knowledge (because that obviously requires some time and reading).

[mistermack]

51 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't see how it follows.

(We are causing mass extinctions ⇒ we are too many)

What follows is that fewer humans = less extinctions. You can argue if you like about how we behave, but human nature isn't going to change, whereas the numbers HAVE changed, and can be addressed. 

We certainly ARE too many for the planet, given the current and past behaviour, that's the point. You can daydream about behaviour changing, I'd rather tackle the numbers problem. That actually has a chance of working. 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What follows is that fewer humans = less extinctions.

I am not sure about it either, unless 'fewer humans' is 0.

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

human nature isn't going to change

It changes all the time, IMO.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't assume that. I think the human population is underutilized, mismanaged, and kept barely above slavery in many parts of the world. I think the outrage of overpopulation is being manufactured by those who hoard resources and demean the labor of people.

Rather than giving the resource hoarders more control over our reproduction, I'd like to try more cooperation and less competition, and try to distribute resources more efficiently and effectively for a larger percentage of the population. No more food rotting on docks because there's no profit in getting it to starving people, which will make them healthier and more able to continue their own prosperity. I'd like to start a cycle like that, because we know where the "overpopulation" cycle leads.

I think resources can be inequitably distributed, and some groups are big on overconsumption, but that doesn't mean that we aren't overpopulating too.   Population and quality of life are connected, even if pointing this out can be misused for political purposes.  

[mistermack]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

It changes all the time, IMO.

How come?

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Population and quality of life are connected, even if pointing this out can be misused for political purposes.  

You frame this as if lower population automatically means higher quality of life. I propose that focusing on education and healthcare, giving people access to success, and working on ways to curb overconsumption can achieve a higher quality of life for more people than we have now. I suspect the problem has deep roots in how the rich keep the poor poor, then complain that they're the problem.

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How come?

Globally, regionally, locally ... Mentally, culturally, behaviorally ...

Thank you for playing. As I don't intend to discuss this topic any deeper, I rather excuse myself.

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think resources can be inequitably distributed, and some groups are big on overconsumption, but that doesn't mean that we aren't overpopulating too.   Population and quality of life are connected, even if pointing this out can be misused for political purposes.  

While both are correlated to some degree, consumption is a multiplier. Obviously, a population that only consumes a tenth in terms of resources (especially habitat use, if we are talking about extinctions) can sustain a higher population. Moreover, it should also be noted that a lot of destruction in developing countries, especially of habitats, is driven by consumption by richer countries (key products here include coffee, rubber, cocoa, palm oil). Key culprits here are Western Europe, North America and the Middle East which create the largest impact on biodiversity outside of their own country. The footprint then also varies by the cultivation technology and often, due to economic pressures, it is not worthwhile or even feasible for poorer countries to implement sustainable practices.

There are discussions underway to think about a fair-share use of available land use. That is not to say that population increases exacerbate issues, but too frequently the population argument is weaponized against population-rich countries, while we are sipping coffee and discuss how the other folks are ruining everything for us.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106981 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01138-7

 

[TheVat]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

The number of humans is far less relevant than the way we use and exploit resources in aggregate 

Saying it's relevant is not to say reducing population is THE solution, only that it may be part of a suite of solutions that protect arable land, wetlands, beaches, parks, wilderness preserves, watersheds, airsheds, oceans, etc which are vital to having a nurturing planet.   Working against this common sense suite of solutions are toxic ideologies and religious beliefs, which sometimes foster a notion that my group is special and chosen and we should have large families and lots of room to push out the less-special people.  And, allied with that, is the anthropocentric view that we can also push out other species who just don't matter as much.   

One reason I avoid trying to define a global carrying capacity is that quality of life is not easily rendered in numbers and constant over all bioregions.   Phoenix is already overpopulated at a couple million, and is already massively dependent on resources imported from other areas, and struggling grimly to find enough water.  The Mekong delta OTOH could probably handle more people, with its society having a more low-carbon lifestyle and immense biological richness and fecundity all around.  That said, I haven't heard of too many places where ordinary people (not local business and tourism boosters) are crying dear god we just need more people!  I live in a relatively sparsely populated place, and yet even here there has been a decline in many metrics of livability.  My city is already prone to spells of poor air quality due to the bowl effect of hills, and the metro is a mere 120,000 people.  It is dirtier, less walkable, the creek for which the town is named is threatened by runoff, traffic is ugly, people are less friendly, housing prices are insane and there is the unmistakable impression that if we could just stop growing for one freaking minute and catch our collective breath then we might be able to catch up on some of these problems.   It is just not normal and healthy for human civilization to go from 3 billion people to 8 billion in less than my lifetime.   

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Moreover, it should also be noted that a lot of destruction in developing countries, especially of habitats, is driven by consumption by richer countries (key products here include coffee, rubber, cocoa, palm oil). Key culprits here are Western Europe, North America and the Middle East which create the largest impact on biodiversity outside of their own country.

Yes.  I too have pointed this out in other threads.  Western nations spread their rapacious level of consumption, both by stripmining resources of developing countries, and by selling a Western lifestyle to them.  And places where population increase is rapid do then experience a double-barrelled blast of social and ecological problems.   

And there is the sad paradox of bringing in vaccines and reducing child mortality and better crop yields....all supposed to improve life...and then you have a disruptive rapid surge in population that later struggles to sustain itself when drought years come.   This happened in the USA too, when too many people came in and grew crops on land really only suited for grazing sheep or cattle.  The result was an eco disaster called the Dust Bowl.   Millions of Californians are descended from the torrent of refugees it created.

[mistermack]

When you get a population explosion of other animals, mice, rats, elk, lemmings, or even wood boring beetles, we are quick to accept that the population is excessive and it's causing ecological problems. But none of these natural increases is anything like our own explosion. Maybe chickens are a match. 

I don't know why people are so resistant to recognising that it's a problem. When you look at where people are building, in India, it's a bit of a glimpse of the future.

By the way, I don't believe for a minute that the population is going to top out and level off. Not without action. It has in wealthy countries, but I don't believe the world is going to level up in wealth within the next century. In any case, a lot of the wealth of the West is not transferrable. It's mostly in inflated property values, and infrastructure and institutions. You can't move a Surrey mansion to Afghanistan, even if you wanted to. And political stability has historically been one of the hardest things to transfer.  

[CharonY]

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

My city is already prone to spells of poor air quality due to the bowl effect of hills, and the metro is a mere 120,000 people.  It is dirtier, less walkable, the creek for which the town is named is threatened by runoff, traffic is ugly, people are less friendly, housing prices are insane and there is the unmistakable impression that if we could just stop growing for one freaking minute and catch our collective breath then we might be able to catch up on some of these problems.

I will just state that in the 80s with a far lower population smog warnings and weekend driving bans or restrictions were more common than nowadays. And this is with fewer people and cars on the road. Ultimately, this was achieved by implementing air quality standards and forcing folks to implement technology to mitigate these issues.

Again, it is not to say that population does not exert pressure, but I do think that folks overfocus on this part (for a wide range of reasons, some justified, some rather dubious). 

And this is mostly because it seems to be the low-hanging fruit to blame things on. The real issue in my mind is the underlying structure or system. High housing prices is not just caused by population pressure. Some countries are better at dealing with it by having a more established renting vs home ownership market with different economic incentives. However, changing that system is more disruptive so often we only look for simple solution where we do not have to sacrifice anything. Unfortunately, we have likely moved past that point, because we have been overconsuming for many generations. But we'd rather have others pay the price, of course. Unless the goal is to kill of people (and again, based on that logic, we should first get rid of folks in NA, Western Europe and the ME), the first thing we need to do is to figure out what the balance of standard of living and consumption is with existing technologies and practices. From there we could figure out what the population limit should or can be. If our standard of living depends on massive habitat destruction, well, then even a much smaller population would be destructive. 

[Phi for All]

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

While both are correlated to some degree, consumption is a multiplier. Obviously, a population that only consumes a tenth in terms of resources (especially habitat use, if we are talking about extinctions) can sustain a higher population.

This is where people in general get the blame, but in the US, at least, the economy is geared towards breaking families up into the smallest groups possible, ensuring that everybody needs to buy everything, leading to overconsumption on a massive scale. 

[TheVat]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I don't know why people are so resistant to recognising that it's a problem. When you look at where people are building, in India, it's a bit of a glimpse of the future.

Two persistent misunderstandings block a clear view of the problem, one that advocacy for population decrease is some Right-Wing wolf in sheep's clothing, and is only aimed at brown people.  I've tried to dispel that one.  The other is that all land is equal and that people can live on any dry surface.  Well, maybe very affluent people, who can hire a team of engineers and have a million dollars on hand.  The rest of us need to keep a distance from seashores, flood plains, dust storms, swamps, unstable slopes, dry lands which lack a sustainable aquifer, fire-prone woodlands, etc.  It's surprising how little of Earth s land area is really suited for human habitation.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

This is where people in general get the blame, but in the US, at least, the economy is geared towards breaking families up into the smallest groups possible, ensuring that everybody needs to buy everything, leading to overconsumption on a massive scale. 

A good point, the elimination of extended family homes is one of the hallmarks of the over-consuming USA.  Dad was 500 miles away, so I had to buy an extension ladder instead of us just sharing one with him.  We also largely eliminated the boarding house, a handy setup for single people that pooled resources nicely and provided a homecooked meal.  

 

[StringJunky]

If the mortality rate dropped from having having better resource access, the poorer inhabitants won't need to produce more children to ensure they have somebody to look after them in old age. State pensions aren't a thing everywhere. This is only one element in a complex problem, but that's probably not an insignificant driver.

Edited August 28, 2023 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is where people in general get the blame, but in the US, at least, the economy is geared towards breaking families up into the smallest groups possible, ensuring that everybody needs to buy everything, leading to overconsumption on a massive scale. 

There is also globalization, which on the one hand puts great food on our tables, but often on the backs of those who produce them. It is a hugely complicated mess, but this is often the space where folks seek simple answers. 

I think a big driver is also that the industries are building for obsolescence and low cost (e.g. clothing) in order to maximize profit. It is often cheaper to buy rather than to repair (not to mention more convenient). And considering that it is also often cheaper to ship things to different countries to assemble and/or process things, the cost savings add up to a lot of environmental cost that we offload to future generations. And I know that a lot of hypocrisy is involved here as I am sitting in a AC-cooled environment in front of a computer and surrounded by affordable electronics (not to mention coffee).

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

There is also globalization, which on the one hand puts great food on our tables, but often on the backs of those who produce them. It is a hugely complicated mess, but this is often the space where folks seek simple answers. 

I think a big driver is also that the industries are building for obsolescence and low cost (e.g. clothing) in order to maximize profit. It is often cheaper to buy rather than to repair (not to mention more convenient). And considering that it is also often cheaper to ship things to different countries to assemble and/or process things, the cost savings add up to a lot of environmental cost that we offload to future generations. And I know that a lot of hypocrisy is involved here as I am sitting in a AC-cooled environment in front of a computer and surrounded by affordable electronics (not to mention coffee).

Same with Big Pharma, they want repeat prescriptions. Curing ailments is not in their long-term interest.