Are we overpopulated?

[petrushka.googol]

According to Malthusian theory we are overpopulated.....

According to me we are grossly overpopulated....

 

The earth is a planet bursting at the seams....

 

Looks like we need some urgent re-thinking and introspection.

[iNow]

Here's a nice overview of the topic presented in an engaging way:

 

[DevilSolution]

WorldPopulation.jpeg

You can see where we are. If you have read my posts you can guess where I think our population should be.

This chart shows why I don't think there is a practical solution to our over population.

 

That map correlated closely with inflation growth, or a more the more accurate growth of GDP....We just need to grow up, literally speaking. Just farm upwards instead of outwards.

 

You must either admit everyone offers something or be willing to sacrafice yourself, you cannot simply say the world is over populated without being part of the solution....its contradicting and condescending.

Edited November 3, 2013 by DevilSolution

[BusaDave9]

....We just need to grow up, literally speaking. Just farm upwards instead of outwards.

 

You must either admit everyone offers something or be willing to sacrifice yourself, you cannot simply say the world is over populated without being part of the solution....its contradicting and condescending.

 

You, and just about everyone else that thinks earth is not overpopulated, has the attitude that if we just overcome the problems of overpopulation, then it's not overpopulation.

 

 

Here is my take on the issue:

 

 

Let's compare us to the white tail deer we have here in the US. What if white tail deer were to populate every continent. What if most of them lived in herds of hundreds of thousands, or even over a million deer. They would never be able to find food within such large herds so the deer would take over all the fertile land to grow food. Herds of more than a million would even populate the most desolate deserts (think Phoenix AZ). Populating these deserts would entail bringing water down from the mountains or other places with water. Who in their right mind would say that is not overpopulation? Anyone saying those deer are not overpopulated must believe that deer are so special that there could never be too many.

[DevilSolution]

 

You, and just about everyone else that thinks earth is not overpopulated, has the attitude that if we just overcome the problems of overpopulation, then it's not overpopulation.

 

 

Here is my take on the issue:

 

 

 

Please quote me saying that i think the earth is not over populated? i hypothosized 2 solutions, i fall into the latter...

 

Its naive to compare 2 different species in that context, we use logic to create solutions, they run on purely natural instinct. We wage a totally different war on nature than any other species does.

[BusaDave9]

DevilSolution, maybe I misunderstood you. Please extrapolate on the solutions you speak of.

[vampares]

If I could get some more deer, bear and maybe even wolfs to chime in I bet we would get more responses saying humans are crowding out wildlife and animals the world over.

 

Wow, by that standard no other animal has overpopulated the world (maybe a local area).

 

By that standard humans could populate the whole world as one big city and grow our food in laboratories

 

 

I'd have to say that you are so emasculated and quazi-sexual for such a consideration. --[just kidding]

 

 

Over population is intrinsic in our existence by the social order of contrarians. Not only politics, not only industry, not only technology but science to is DICTATED by an itching-butts need for need by failure.

 

Kill Bill and then we can talk some more.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Not to worry, our species will soon enough self - destruct.

[iNow]

Why in your opinion would such an outcome suggest the lack of need for concern?

[Deremensis]

There's a reason that a question like this is so difficult to answer. It's quite normal for a population of pretty much any species of organism to explode in growth when their carrying capacity has been dramatically raised, as ours has by means of technology. What's worrisome isn't that we change the environment, because pretty much all organisms have an effect on the environment, and we have no less right to do so than those other organisms do - but rather that we change it on such a massive scale.

 

I don't personally think the issue is really one of population size at all. We will eventually reach carrying capacity, and I doubt it'll be when we simply have too few resources to go around. The issue is finding a way to maintain our population while cutting back on our effect on the environment. More likely than not, the answer to that problem will be the same as what allowed our population to grow larger in the first place - more technology. Already we have viable ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. We have viable ways to cut back on manmade climate change, what we need to figure out is how to grow and raise food in a viable way that won't harm the environment, and possibly allow us to restore it. As I said - the issue isn't the size of the population, but how we choose to manage it, and I'm optimistic about our ability to do so.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Human population passed the point at which forced one child families would prevent the population crash not later than mid century, was the end of the last century, unfortunately. It is now at a TBR of near zero to stop it, which is logistically impossible, and psychologically impossible. It is a cascading event area to area, region to region, continent to continent. Nigeria, India, then China leading, perhaps as early as 2030.

The graph refered to above is not accurate, like so many others, in that it does not take in increasing death rates along with decreasing birth rates from increasing abject poverty. I used actual mammal population figures and found humans are on the same stimulated mammal population crash curve in 1967. This gave 6 billion 2000AD and mid-century rapid die off. I redid it in 1995 using completely different methodology, data from numerous sources and in multiple disciplines, to very near the same curve, with a slight shift forward in time.

The sustainabilty figure for no depletion of soil and water, or other resources, and no pollution of any kind over the natural or forced absorption rates, varies with standard of living. In the end, standard of living boils down to average calories per person per day. Poor is 1500 and below, "Euro" is 2500, and "American" is 3500.

Of course there are many other factors fudging it around, like obesity rates, the high fructose corn syrup conspiracy, radioactivity, mercury, oil and coal depletion, or and plastics. Footprints are magnified by TBR, and the sad reality is Earth is at least 7 times max population at "Euro" levels. Sustainable level itself is going down and accelerating, with depletion and pollution effects on the biosphere.

There are possible geologic solutions, that could not only prevent the crash, but maybe even prevent the eventual AETM ELE. Katla, Cascadia, LaPalma--all due, if large enough, could trigger mass die off before the tundra positive feedback loop is completely formed. If people go to one child families, it could delay the crash to a point of almost no resources left on a planet disrupted for 3 to 10 million years or, if the "Venus Effect" is initiated, until solar nova.

There is also the possibility of nuclear war, which would be very difficult to keep below nuclear winter threshold, or toxic planetary irradiation.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Johnny Electriglide

[vampares]

Retaliatory opinions are in vain.

 

I've grown up on nutrient supplements and dietary scientific digression.

 

I see nothing wrong with manipulating our environment to be a healthy as I am. Healthier even as the environment often effects human health.

I used to (and still do at times) pedicycle transit with a face mask for breathing purposes.

 

The question has been asked before and jury is out IMO as to whether or not humans can sustain themselves, as it were.

 

Behavior is then the next issue. At some point we will start killing each other, regardless of the density. Quite the density.

 

On the end of the stick there is stupidity. I've seen the stupidity-and-a-stick tactic move forward with some success. Unfortunately it has not been to the betterment of great nations. Ignorance as bliss has it's turn as well. Nothing halts over reproduction however, although emigration may be on the rise.

Edited April 7, 2014 by vampares

[Johnny Electriglide]

In my opinion (not "retaliatory") overpopulation effects started hitting the USA really bad by 1980. Since 1970, with immigration and their kids, we have gone up another 100+ million, un-needed people who escaped the self made effects of overpopulation in their own country. The 1965 change from the 1924 Act was not thought out and not needed or wanted. The major reform needed is just enforcement of laws which if the fines were paid, would eliminate the National Debt and more.

Overpopulation is the root cause of over-pollution and its CAGW.

Itself is caused by the over-breeding tendency of mammals, general stupidity and lack of foresight of our species in general, with greed and selfishness, The lack of ecological education has been atrocious.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Johnny Electriglide

[Sensei]

Johnny Electriglide, do you have children?

 

Anybody who in this thread are saying/voted that we are overpopulated- do you have children?

[BusaDave9]

Johnny Electriglide, do you have children?

 

Anybody who in this thread are saying/voted that we are overpopulated- do you have children?

Yes, I have children and believe we are very much overpopulated. Why do you ask? Because we shouldn't have kids if we believe we are overpopulated? Or are you thinking that kids bring such joy that having kids shouldn't be denied to anyone?

[Acme]

The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

 

People run like tired lemmings headed for the sea

Borders of imagination keeping them from seeing things

Ancient guards in greying fortresses of old ideas

Standing guard on treasure that has long since disappeared from use

 

Oh, we have got to find something better

Oh, people, we've got to find something better

...

Edited April 12, 2014 by Acme

[caledonia]

There's a reason that a question like this is so difficult to answer. It's quite normal for a population of pretty much any species of organism to explode in growth when their carrying capacity has been dramatically raised, as ours has by means of technology. What's worrisome isn't that we change the environment, because pretty much all organisms have an effect on the environment, and we have no less right to do so than those other organisms do - but rather that we change it on such a massive scale.

 

I don't personally think the issue is really one of population size at all. We will eventually reach carrying capacity, and I doubt it'll be when we simply have too few resources to go around. The issue is finding a way to maintain our population while cutting back on our effect on the environment. More likely than not, the answer to that problem will be the same as what allowed our population to grow larger in the first place - more technology. Already we have viable ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. We have viable ways to cut back on manmade climate change, what we need to figure out is how to grow and raise food in a viable way that won't harm the environment, and possibly allow us to restore it. As I said - the issue isn't the size of the population, but how we choose to manage it, and I'm optimistic about our ability to do so.

You do not explicitly mention the loss of species which is happening now and is accelerating, owing to man's "massive scale" impact on the environment.

For me, this is the most deplorable result of unrestrained human reproduction.

[lewiss41]

Humans will continue to reproduce at the peril of ourselves, and other species. We like to think were above other species, but the truth of the matter is that we are controlled by our biology.

Edited April 19, 2014 by lewiss41

[Johnny Electriglide]

Johnny Electriglide, do you have children?

 

Anybody who in this thread are saying/voted that we are overpopulated- do you have children?

I had one child at 39 years old, when there was still hope, in 1988. I went totally solar in 1998.

Now we are headed toward a Global Terminal Extinction Event or series of events. Even worse than a population crash.

Back in the sixties, that aspect was not really well known yet, that we would kill our biosphere by HGHGs. It never would have happened if population was controlled world wide by the 1970s. Overpopulation to overpollution far beyond absorption rates and depletion of resources at thousands of times replenishment rates, led to buildup of HGHGs to CAGW and methane turnover, which leads to a worse than Permian Extinction and possible runaway to the "Venus Effect".

Unless the population crashes from a natural or man-induced "natural" geologic catastrophic event, with enough emissions reductions in time, or volcanic winter to crash and cool, with the biosphere saved and 80% of species left.

We really need something like Toba to stop the process.

[tentacle]

no we are not. malthusianism is debunked.

[Basic Biology]

It really is a matter of how much food the human population requires and how much we can sustainably provide. I don't have those numbers but I would be surprised if we are currently managing to that with our current use of resources and technology but that's not to say that it isn't possible.

[Peace]

A few days ago i came across this website - very, very good - I agree with all of the main points on it so far, and I am pleased to have found it because a lot of the ideas are ones my father and I came up with independently - the message has to be one coupled with hope, for one, and the ideas that the primary humane way to solve the problem is to encourage the spread of good ideas about it; especially that we can solve it by having one or two children per family, at most.

 

I was just very pleased to see these ideas developed independently; and it seems to be a very good chance at solving the problem. This particular site asserts that we have about three times what the earth would be able to sustain - at a European level of living. I like the FAQ page and the "Our Vision" page, and I am enjoying the other articles as well - gradually reading through them now.

 

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/articles/our-vision-solve-overpopulation

[Harold Squared]

Leaving the planet comes to mind. Earth is not enough, and in fact is infested with all manner of nasty diseases and parasites, crushing gravity, seismic disturbances and wretched weather. Over most of the planet's surface unprotected humans swiftly perish in fact.

 

Alien invasion fiction consistently neglects to mention the relative worthlessness of Terran real estate.

 

It is absurd to consider the planet "overpopulated" with an entire continent, Antarctica, virtually destitute of human habitation.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Harold Squared