NationStates Jolt Archive

To explain this premise, I'll start by pointing to the guy made famous for his predictions, but remembered for his inaccuracy: Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus was an English Economist who's writings in the early 19th Century predicted that unless population growth was curtailed, starvation would be rampant and permanent. At the time of his writings, the world population had reached an estimated 1 billion people for the first time and, by his estimates, the world was facing a crisis as it could only produce enough food for a 20% increase (for a total of 1.2 billion people) before the amount of people in the world surpassed the amount of food producable to sustain it.

Needless to say, this didn't happen.

What was interesting was that Malthus' estimates were correct. At the time of his writings, the world was capable of only having 1.2 billion people before there was a genuine food shortage.

There are now almost 6.5 billion people in the world. So what happened?

Where Malthus goofed up was that he failed to take into account the changes in technology that have increased human efficiency ever since Caveman Thag rubbed two pieces of flint together to make an easy spark. Advances in technology have increased the overall food supply disproportionately faster than human population needs. For example, between 1960 and 1999, the estimated world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion. In that same period of time, technological advances have quadrupled the world's food supply while only using a total of 5% more land.

This is why I have problems when I hear environmental groups claim that the world can only support 12 billion people or whatever. People have exponentially improved their ability to provide food for themselves through technological changes since before we had writing. All of history supports the notion that this trend will continue; the incredible leaps in technology that we've made just in the last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever have given us good reason to believe that technology will continue to develop faster than ever thanks to the communications revolution.

So why worry about overpopulation? People will figure out a way to deal with it and the availablity and supply of food will continue to grow faster than the world's population.

Edit note: this isn't to suggest that starvation will ever be entirely eliminated; only to argue that the world will always be able to produce enough food to support its human population. Distribution is a whole other matter.

I bet the fact that we have the ability to feed them is a real comfort to the Nigerans. :rolleyes:

Overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of food available. It has everything to do with the amount of resources available. Earth couldn't support a much larger population than it has now with a current western-style lifestyle.

So why worry about overpopulation? People will figure out a way to deal with it and the availablity and supply of food will continue to grow faster than the world's population.

This assumes that the possibilities of technology are literally limitless, and we have no evidence for that being the case, instead it seems that there are certain things which it is quite literally impossible to do in this cosmos. Thus positing an infinite food supply to cater for an infinite population is mistaken.

With the amount of food that sits in storehouses around the world nobody should ever go hungry. :mad:

I bet the fact that we have the ability to feed them is a real comfort to the Nigerans. :rolleyes:

Aye. I mean its all well and good to say that we have enough food, but a huge percentage of Earth's population is starving as we speak.

I bet the fact that we have the ability to feed them is a real comfort to the Nigerans. :rolleyes:

The irony is that we probably do have the ability to feed them, but not the will.

Overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of food available. It has everything to do with the amount of resources available. Earth couldn't support a much larger population than it has now with a current western-style lifestyle.That depends on what you consider "western". I'm pretty sure there are some significant differences between Europeans and Americans when it comes to some consumption habits.

even if we have enough food we will not necessarilly have enough room for everyone to live happily and we will not have enough jobs for the huge opulation booms

With the amount of food that sits in storehouses around the world nobody should ever go hungry. :mad:
Problem is, making the greedy Sons of B*****s take it from the point A Storehous to the point B Starving people.

I think there is an overpopulation problem, but the major hole in your argument is definitely the fact that people are starving to death and you also don't put water into account. 20,000 children (0-5) die per day due to lack of clean water.

The irony is that we probably do have the ability to feed them, but not the will.

Yep.

Coupled with uneven distribution of wealth and technology...if third world countries fail to develop, Malthus' prediction will come true, even if it wasn't entirely accurate.

Sure it's possible, considering we're overheating the earth, draining it posthaste of all it's oil, and demolishing more open spaces for suburbs....

The irony is that we probably do have the ability to feed them, but not the will.That's pretty much what I said, only not sarcastic...
Yeah, that is what I'm hinting at. I mean, we even have the food necessary to have averted the situation as it is, but we didn't do it. We now have the chance to get something done in the neighboring countries which will suffer a famine soon, and we probably won't act until the pictures of the malnourished children melt our hearts... :(

Overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of food available. It has everything to do with the amount of resources available. Earth couldn't support a much larger population than it has now with a current western-style lifestyle.

Yeaaaaah... but the point was that technology creates new and more efficient ways to use resources, as all of human history demonstrates. I mean, come on; oil was completely useless 200 years ago--now it makes the world go 'round.

I guess that all I can say is that you'll someday see that you're wrong... or not... I suppose that 50 years from now you could be saying, "sure, the world has 12 billion people, and it's growing like crazy and we have more food than ever, but this isn't sustainable and now we're REALLY in trouble!"

Maybe I should clarify--I personally believe that there will always be starvation in the world no matter how much food we have simply because people suck. I consider, for example, areas like Somaolia where local warlord thugs ride around in trucks with automatic weapons and control the entire food supply because they use the food as leverage to keep power.

I guess my point was that fear of creating a food-shortage problem shouldn't be the basis for wanting to curtail procreation.

Isaac Asimov wrote quite a bit about overpopulation also, and if I remember correctly, his mistakes were similar to Malthus'. I think it's basically ignored by most people because it happens slowly, over generations, and as was said before, technology isn't limitless, and depending on things to come is pretty scary. Anyone over thirty can recall a very different world/society than the one we now live in. That's because, among other things, there are a helluva lot more of us.

I still don't understand why you're clining to your argument about food. People need other things to survive. The point is you can't create something from nothing. Look at the middle east once a lush fertile place, now all desert...I'm not one of those people who claims disaster will strike and it will be the end of mankind I'm saying it's just not probable that the human population will manage well at those numbers just as we are not now. I mean it's not a healthy 6.5 billion. Like I said those thousands that die because of not having clean water...

The irony is that we probably do have the ability to feed them, but not the will.
We do. The west spends multiple times the amount of money on defense than would be needed to irrigate Africa and provide food for its population. The wonders of capitalism.

Yeaaaaah... but the point was that technology creates new and more efficient ways to use resources, as all of human history demonstrates. I mean, come on; oil was completely useless 200 years ago--now it makes the world go 'round.Quite frankly, no matter how technological, there isn't enough water in some African countries. Europe is friggin water rich with smaller streams every few miles and a larger river every few more. There just isn't that kind of resource richness in some places. The point is, African's need to be damn efficient when it comes to water usage, but the places that have the technology are the places that don't really need it that bad. In the areas of the former GDR, ther currently is a problem with NOT USING ENOUGH water. Germans are rather thrifty (compared to other westerners) when it comes to water usage. The problem with this is that in the east, due to the fact that there aren't that many jobs, the cities are shrinking in population. Water usage per capita hasn't changed much (if it hasn't gone down a bit) but the drop in population reduces the total use by quite a bit. This has a bad effect on the pipe systems, with water stagnating in them and microorganisms forming. In the end, water costs more because the pipes need to be cleaned more often...
The problem isn't only that the world doesn't have enough resources to support a Western Lifestyle, it's the areas themselves that don't.
And human nature has shown that we only address problems when we start feeling things that could have been prevented.

Maybe I should clarify--I personally believe that there will always be starvation in the world no matter how much food we have simply because people suck. I consider, for example, areas like Somaolia where local warlord thugs ride around in trucks with automatic weapons and control the entire food supply because they use the food as leverage to keep power.
Then in addition to providing food for Somalians, perhaps we should send in our troops to wipe out the warlords.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Even China and India with their massive populations have enough food output to feed everyone in their country. The problem here is economics( mostly in India) most people can afford basic food stuffs, but the poorest of the poor cannot. In China the poorest of the poor gnerally live on the land anyway so they produce their food and if there is a drought they have a developed infrastucture to get food to the people in need.

In africa the problem is war, civil wars etc coupled with poorly developed irrigation projects. If Africa was to stop its conflicts and develop thier economy and irrigation systems the food problem largely disappear.

Maybe I should clarify--I personally believe that there will always be starvation in the world no matter how much food we have simply because people suck. I consider, for example, areas like Somaolia where local warlord thugs ride around in trucks with automatic weapons and control the entire food supply because they use the food as leverage to keep power. That's not the only reason. Famine, drought, locust swarms. There's places that haven't had rain in such a long time.

I guess my point was that fear of creating a food-shortage problem shouldn't be the basis for wanting to curtail procreation.Yes it should. Country's that have no food problem (or resource shortage problems) are the ones with lower population growth. Food shortage maybe not, but the more people there are, the more people will have to share.

well land area on which to settle is not a problem...

think of all the open space in Russia, the western United States, Canada, etc... plenty of room for billions.

overpopulated parts of India and Bangladesh can be resettled up in Siberia. hehe

people from overpopulated cities in South America (Sao Paolo, Rio, Buenos Aires, etc.) could be moved to Montana/Wyoming, western Brazil, or Canada.

there's plenty of space.

Firstly, let me point out that there is enough food to feed the entire population of Earth. Unfair distribution is the problem, not overpopulation.

But anyway, to your point. Firstly, population growth is faster at any point in history. Secondly, growth in food production is not exponential, but population growth is, so demand will eventually outstrip demand. At the moment, cereal production per capita has fallen since the 1950s. Unless we curb population growth, we will have a global starvation problem, and that's mathematically certain.

We do. The west spends multiple times the amount of money on defense than would be needed to irrigate Africa and provide food for its population. The wonders of capitalism.

we send them billions of dollars every year and it doesn';t work because the overlords take the money and spend it on themselves and their cronies. they have to start helping themselves, somehow. As it is, throwing money at Africa is a crappy solution to ending hunger there.

I still don't understand why you're clining to your argument about food. People need other things to survive. The point is you can't create something from nothing. Look at the middle east once a lush fertile place, now all desert...I'm not one of those people who claims disaster will strike and it will be the end of mankind I'm saying it's just not probable that the human population will manage well at those numbers just as we are not now. I mean it's not a healthy 6.5 billion. Like I said those thousands that die because of not having clean water...

I think that fresh water can be characterized in the same way, since technologies available to purify water are steadily becoming cheaper, efficient, and more accessible. But as I said, this is not to suggest that there will ever be a time when no one will lack the resources they need for survival--I'll leave that kind of thinking to Gene Roddenberry.

What are you, the possibility police? Just because the industrial revolution increased the productive capacities of Europe doesn't mean that technology will somehow continue to increase our productive capacities until infinity. No matter what the case, a human being needs a certain amount of calories, not to mention nutrients, protein, etc., to survive, and there is a limit to the amount of those that can be produced with the resources the world has. Not to mention, do we really want to turn over every square inch of the planet to production for human consumption?

Firstly, let me point out that there is enough food to feed the entire population of Earth. Unfair distribution is the problem, not overpopulation.

But anyway, to your point. Firstly, population growth is faster at any point in history. Secondly, growth in food production is not exponential, but population growth is, so demand will eventually outstrip demand. At the moment, cereal production per capita has fallen since the 1950s. Unless we curb population growth, we will have a global starvation problem, and that's mathematically certain.

That's pretty much exactly what Malthus said. I dare you to back up your claims about food production not increasing exponentially.

well land area on which to settle is not a problem...

think of all the open space in Russia, the western United States, Canada, etc... plenty of room for billions.

overpopulated parts of India and Bangladesh can be resettled up in Siberia. hehe

people from overpopulated cities in South America (Sao Paolo, Rio, Buenos Aires, etc.) could be moved to Montana/Wyoming, western Brazil, or Canada.

there's plenty of space.

I've always wondered how many of the people decrying overpopulation have ever driven across the United States.

we send them billions of dollars every year and it doesn';t work because the overlords take the money and spend it on themselves and their cronies. they have to start helping themselves, somehow. As it is, throwing money at Africa is a crappy solution to ending hunger there.

How about we use the money to set up crack teams of agents trained in the skills of covert operations who will surreptitiously set up and instigate irrigation projects right under the noses of the warlords?

But anyway, to your point. Firstly, population growth is faster at any point in history. Secondly, growth in food production is not exponential, but population growth is, so demand will eventually outstrip demand. At the moment, cereal production per capita has fallen since the 1950s. Unless we curb population growth, we will have a global starvation problem, and that's mathematically certain.

Food production may appear linear at present, but that doesn't take in to account technological developments like genetic engineering and improved methods of fertilization, irrigation, and pest control. While cereal production per capita has falled, it has been made up for in other areas and more efficent processing of the available food, so more can be utilized from a smaller amount.

Food production may appear linear at present, but that doesn't take in to account technological developments like genetic engineering and improved methods of fertilization, irrigation, and pest control. While cereal production per capita has falled, it has been made up for in other areas and more efficent processing of the available food, so more can be utilized from a smaller amount.

exactly.

Ok I guess I'm really missing the point of your argument. If the 6.5 billion of us are not living well, in fact thousands die per day then whats the point? We can't all "play nice" the way it is fighting for land, water, food, oil, and etc. So do you want that many more people on the planet? No one's trying to stop you from reproducing are they? The only place I know of that does is China and if you don't live there, then how is this man's theory affecting you? And why are you trying to disprove it? I also agree with human beings not recognizing a problem until it is one.

I am using the mathematical argument of Joel E. Cohen, Professor of Populations at the Rockefeller University. You see, the percentage increase (about 1.8% I think) is higher than at any other point in history. Secondly, not only can food production logically keep up with growth, some areas (Asia, for one) have a higher growth rate than others, so the unequal distribution of population will cause even worse food shortages.

The UN estimates our population will double within 40 years. In 145 years, it will have increased to almost 700 billion, over 100-fold. Do you really think it's possible to support a population that large?

I've always wondered how many of the people decrying overpopulation have ever driven across the United States.
OK, but we've got about 6 billion people on the earth right now. Population doubles about every 30 years or so. What percentage of the next 6 billion people do you think you can fit in the liveable parts of the western US? Not to mention the land needed to meet the production needs of those people.

To explain this premise, I'll start by pointing to the guy made famous for his predictions, but remembered for his inaccuracy: Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus was an English Economist who's writings in the early 19th Century predicted that unless population growth was curtailed, starvation would be rampant and permanent. At the time of his writings, the world population had reached an estimated 1 billion people for the first time and, by his estimates, the world was facing a crisis as it could only produce enough food for a 20% increase (for a total of 1.2 billion people) before the amount of people in the world surpassed the amount of food producable to sustain it.

Needless to say, this didn't happen.

What was interesting was that Malthus' estimates were correct. At the time of his writings, the world was capable of only having 1.2 billion people before there was a genuine food shortage.

There are now almost 6.5 billion people in the world. So what happened?

Where Malthus goofed up was that he failed to take into account the changes in technology that have increased human efficiency ever since Caveman Thag rubbed two pieces of flint together to make an easy spark. Advances in technology have increased the overall food supply disproportionately faster than human population needs. For example, between 1960 and 1999, the estimated world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion. In that same period of time, technological advances have quadrupled the world's food supply while only using a total of 5% more land.

This is why I have problems when I hear environmental groups claim that the world can only support 12 billion people or whatever. People have exponentially improved their ability to provide food for themselves through technological changes since before we had writing. All of history supports the notion that this trend will continue; the incredible leaps in technology that we've made just in the last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever have given us good reason to believe that technology will continue to develop faster than ever thanks to the communications revolution.

So why worry about overpopulation? People will figure out a way to deal with it and the availablity and supply of food will continue to grow faster than the world's population.

Edit note: this isn't to suggest that starvation will ever be entirely eliminated; only to argue that the world will always be able to produce enough food to support its human population. Distribution is a whole other matter.

AS such you have to believe our ability to increase production is higher then our growth rate ... I would be wary of placing all my money on that bet

I've always wondered how many of the people decrying overpopulation have ever driven across the United States.

and i've often wondered how many people have ever seriously learned about energy and resource availability and usage before they go off on irrelevant tangents in order to claim that overpopulation is impossible.

UN estimate is around 9 billion in 2050 and not expected to grow much larger afterward. The fact is that population growth rates are dropping all over the globe.

I am using the mathematical argument of Joel E. Cohen, Professor of Populations at the Rockefeller University. You see, the percentage increase (about 1.8% I think) is higher than at any other point in history. Secondly, not only can food production logically keep up with growth, some areas (Asia, for one) have a higher growth rate than others, so the unequal distribution of population will cause even worse food shortages.

The UN estimates our population will double within 40 years. In 145 years, it will have increased to almost 700 billion, over 100-fold. Do you really think it's possible to support a population that large?

Unequal distribution of population is the cause of all of the world's food problems; the poorest nations have the fastest growth and the least efficent agriculture sector and infrastructure, so that distorts the overall rate of growth. Should they become economically developed, the population problems will mitigate themselves because capacity can then increase at an adequate rate.

I'd say the planet might be able to support 700 billion in 145 years due to the rate of technological innovation in architecture and infrastructure over the past 145; this was a time before we had the tools and knowledge that we have today, so the accomplishments of the next 145 will be even greater.

But only if:
There is considerable improvement in the economic and political situation of the world during the next 145 years, because the implementation of these massive projects will require considerable investment worldwide.

Of course, this doesn't take in to account any extraplanetary ventures.

Ok I guess I'm really missing the point of your argument. If the 6.5 billion of us are not living well, in fact thousands die per day then whats the point? We can't all "play nice" the way it is fighting for land, water, food, oil, and etc. So do you want that many more people on the planet? No one's trying to stop you from reproducing are they? The only place I know of that does is China and if you don't live there, then how is this man's theory affecting you? And why are you trying to disprove it? I also agree with human beings not recognizing a problem until it is one.

Based on this and other responses, it seems like people think that I'm trying to say that everything is good and peachy in the world, and we have nothing to worry about anything. Well... I'm NOT. :) ok? :) What have I said to suggest that? Tell me because I really don't know.

But we're not likely to solve our problems if we haven't properly identified what the problems are. My point is that any increase in the world population will not create new pressures on the global food supply. So the problem is obviously coming from somewhere else. Where else? I would speculate distribution problems, interference from corrupt governments, localized natural phenomenon such as drought, localized man-made phenomenon such as unrestrained deforestation, etc.

I am using the mathematical argument of Joel E. Cohen, Professor of Populations at the Rockefeller University. You see, the percentage increase (about 1.8% I think) is higher than at any other point in history. Secondly, not only can food production logically keep up with growth, some areas (Asia, for one) have a higher growth rate than others, so the unequal distribution of population will cause even worse food shortages.

The UN estimates our population will double within 40 years. In 145 years, it will have increased to almost 700 billion, over 100-fold. Do you really think it's possible to support a population that large?

Re-check your figures. Even if your numbers were correct, which they are not, and the world experienced a 1.8% growth for the next 145 years, the world population would only be 83 billion... approximately 12% of your estimate.

Further, if you ever visited America's Mid-West (I recommend you do sometime anyway--it's unestimated), you would quickly realize that the world will never be overpopulated. For some reason, this is conceptually difficult for urbanites to grasp.

And AGAIN I point out that I am not claiming that starvation will ever be eliminated.

AS such you have to believe our ability to increase production is higher then our growth rate ... I would be wary of placing all my money on that bet

I would take any bets.

and i've often wondered how many people have ever seriously learned about energy and resource availability and usage before they go off on irrelevant tangents in order to claim that overpopulation is impossible.

So this is something you think about, eh? :D

How about we use the money to set up crack teams of agents trained in the skills of covert operations who will surreptitiously set up and instigate irrigation projects right under the noses of the warlords?

who's going to set that up... the UN?

no, it'll be the US and maybe great britain doing the heavy lifting again, and the rest of Europe sneering at us for doing good deeds.

Re-check your figures. Even if your numbers were correct, which they are not, and the world experienced a 1.8% growth for the next 145 years, the world population would only be 83 billion... approximately 12% of your estimate.

Further, if you ever visited America's Mid-West (I recommend you do sometime anyway--it's unestimated), you would quickly realize that the world will never be overpopulated. For some reason, this is conceptually difficult for urbanites to grasp.

And AGAIN I point out that I am not claiming that starvation will ever be eliminated.

the US midwest (counting the upper Midwest -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) has more people than Canada and you know how huge Canada is... you want to talk about minimally populated areas, talk about all of Canada outside of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver! hehe

I'm sorry I didn't mean to attack you, I was honestly just confused. I have been to the midwest actually I drove from PA to AZ. I know right now it appears space is abundant, but that land definitely is sparse. And yes there are many factors for the population growth and though although food production is not the problem, it is also not the solution at the moment. I guess I just like I said earlier personally do not understand why we would want that many people around. Yes we can have 12 billion people on the planet, but why would we want that?

the US midwest (counting the upper Midwest -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) has more people than Canada and you know how huge Canada is... you want to talk about minimally populated areas, talk about all of Canada outside of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver! hehe


You're right. I would actually think that Canada is more inhabitable than the American mid-west simply because it rains more and there are more forests. Nonetheless, you have massive cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, greater Los Angeles, etc. that are built in the middle of the desert or in the middle of nowhere, and it starts to become clear that there's unlimited potential.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to attack you, I was honestly just confused. I have been to the midwest actually I drove from PA to AZ. I know right now it appears space is abundant, but that land definitely is sparse. And yes there are many factors for the population growth and though although food production is not the problem, it is also not the solution at the moment. I guess I just like I said earlier personally do not understand why we would want that many people around. Yes we can have 12 billion people on the planet, but why would we want that?


wait... someone in the forum saying THAT THEY'RE SORRY?????????

My universe has just been thrown upside down! :eek:

Good heavens, maybe there is hope for us afterall ;)

Based on this and other responses, it seems like people think that I'm trying to say that everything is good and peachy in the world, and we have nothing to worry about anything. Well... I'm NOT. :) ok? :) What have I said to suggest that? Tell me because I really don't know.
When I first replied, I don't think you'd edited it yet. But this is why:
So why worry about overpopulation? People will figure out a way to deal with it and the availablity and supply of food will continue to grow faster than the world's population.

But we're not likely to solve our problems if we haven't properly identified what the problems are. My point is that any increase in the world population will not create new pressures on the global food supply. So the problem is obviously coming from somewhere else. Where else? I would speculate distribution problems, interference from corrupt governments, localized natural phenomenon such as drought, localized man-made phenomenon such as unrestrained deforestation, etc.The point is, the problem is already there. We have identified the problem. It's been identified that many former colonies do not have the infrastructure, or even climate, if they have the political stability, to deal with the problem of feeding their population. Another problem is that it is often thought that children are the basis for support in old age. But certain countries block education programs directed at preventing population growth itself. China has reacted in its own way, a way which I don't necessarily find great, but consider what China would be like today if they hadn't introduced the 1 child rule. Nearly a billion Chinese is the result of the program and its already causing a vast strain on the available oil.
I'd personally be in favor of educating people before things get so bad that forced abortions are the only way to prevent the population size from growing out of control.

You're right. I would actually think that Canada is more inhabitable than the American mid-west simply because it rains more and there are more forests. Nonetheless, you have massive cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, greater Los Angeles, etc. that are built in the middle of the desert or in the middle of nowhere, and it starts to become clear that there's unlimited potential.Could you give some information on where they get their water? I know that Italian cities have water restrictions during summer. And that's Europe, where water is abundant. Where would we take water from in Africa to meet everyone's needs?

There are about 6,446,131,400 people in the world. This is a rough number that doesn't take into account birth and death rates.

There are 11,677,240 square miles in the continent of Africa.

This number equals 7,473,433,600 acres; one square mile equals 640 acres.

Point being, you could give everyone alive one acre of land and they would all fit in Africa with nearly a billion acres to spare.

If North America alone was totally devoted to agriculture we could feed the entire population with TODAYS technology.

Overpopulation is a bullshit myth, it was 50 years ago and it will be 50 years from now. Period.
----------------------

The only way to insure that starvation is put to an end in third world countries is blatant, all out Imperialism, the total elimination of the local oppressive governance in the nations of Africa, Asia and South America. The governments in such places purposely perpetuate the condition of poverty, squalor, and starvation because they directly extract their power and authority FROM that condition. Anything short of totally removing them is like throwing table scraps blindly over your shoulder and expecting that action to clean up a mess. If an absurdly rich American corporation went and tried to "fix" a third world country they would be thrown out, called criminals, accused of insulting and disrespecting national policy or some other bullshit line because the people in power benefit from the status quo.

If you thought Iraq was "unjust," "illegal," "none of our business," "all about the oil," "a travesty," "a quagmire," or all of the above then you need to shut the hell up about starvation around the world. To "fix" the "problem" you need a hundred Iraq’s, a hundred Halliburton’s, and hundreds of thousands of lives. The only people capable of constructing infrastructure, managing food distribution, and constructing a viable self-sustaining economy are the very corporations you bleeding heart, "lets feed everyone," leftists loath so much. Oh and believe me, they aren't paying up if they can't benefit from it in some way, so go and choke on that.

Personally I'm all for it. I think it is the responsibility of the developed nations to step in and assert themselves, to raise the conditions of the oppressed, and I have absolutely no moral qualms with someone else benefiting from helping others. But please we must remember something, today a nation can not truly be called "free" until their gays can get married, today a prosperous nation is not to be considered any better or any worse then a nation that enforces "honor killings" and wonton brutality, today it is "illegal" to prevent an atrocity, today it is "illegal" to act in someone else’s interest if you are simultaneously acting in your own, today it is perfectly acceptable to stand by and watch the oppression of others, claim that we should help them, and then tear down any attempt to do so.

Have a good day.

I am curious you have not even come close to proving it a “factual impossibility” yet all you have said is “so far we have not exceeded it and I don’t believe we will”

How does that make it impossible?

Let's say we are being conservative and saying that the world's population only doubles every 60 years. That means 6 billion more people in most of our lifetimes. While it is true that there are a few wide open spaces left that haven't been paved over, if you remove the ones that are not really suitable for dense habitation (like Siberia, the Sahara, etc.), we really don't have the space to house, feed, and clothe everyone. And even if we do, do we really want to pave over our entire world to avoid having to encourage the use of birth control and smaller families? I mean, we could probably turn Yosemite Park or the Amazon basin into apartment buildings and strip malls, and build power plants in the grand Canyon, but that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

No matter what, we are going to need technological advances to support and increasing population. But we also need to slow population growth. It's pretty ridiculous that anyone can think that just because they know where there is some empty space that they could stick some people we will never ever be overpopulated.

There are about 6,446,131,400 people in the world. This is a rough number that doesn't take into account birth and death rates.

There are 11,677,240 square miles in the continent of Africa.

This number equals 7,473,433,600 acres; one square mile equals 640 acres.

Point being, you could give everyone alive one acre of land and they would all fit in Africa with nearly a billion acres to spare.


Gee, I sure hope my acre isn't in the middle of the Sahara. Or on top of a mountain. Or in the middle of a swamp. Maybe I can get a nice peice of rainforest to bulldoze for farming.

<snip>Let's hear it for the neo-white man's burden :rolleyes:

Gee, I sure hope my acre isn't in the middle of the Sahara. Or on top of a mountain. Or in the middle of a swamp. Maybe I can get a nice peice of rainforest to bulldoze for farming.

Which is really why we have urban development, you know cities and such... homes that house more then one person. That kind of totally evil and disgusting work of man.

Let's hear it for the neo-white man's burden :rolleyes:

My ass. Development through Imperialism is as old as civilization itself, read up on the Romans and the Greeks... Germany (and the rest of Europe) owes it's current state to Roman conquest.

My ass. Development through Imperialism is as old as civilization itself, read up on the Romans and the Greeks... Germany (and the rest of Europe) owes it's current state to Roman conquest.Imperialism doesn't result in progress.
Africa owes it's current state to European conquest, and it is less than preferable.
Saying that we should assert ourselves and set things straight is what caused the problem in the first place. You're basically restating the white man's burden idea.

My ass. Development through Imperialism is as old as civilization itself, read up on the Romans and the Greeks... Germany (and the rest of Europe) owes it's current state to Roman conquest.
And some civilizations became more stable AFTER their imperial stint in history

Which is really why we have urban development, you know cities and such... homes that house more then one person. That kind of totally evil and disgusting work of man.
But we still each need 1.2 acres of land to meet current first world dietary standards. I'm sure we can push that back somewhat, but it's total hubris to pretend that there aren't limits to that ability. Frankly, we're going to need that increase in productive capacity even if we do somehow slow our population growth a lot.

Also, like I said, do we really think that we haven't lost anything when we turn the entire surface of the Earth into urban sprawl?

Also, like I said, do we really think that we haven't lost anything when we turn the entire surface of the Earth into urban sprawl?Nah. By that time we'll have developed plants that don't need soil to grow...

Problem is, making the greedy Sons of B*****s take it from the point A Storehous to the point B Starving people.
If everyone who complained about OTHER people not doing this devoted their lives and resources to do it themselves, I bet they could feed quite a few people. Until you do this, shut the fuck up about it.

Let's say we are being conservative and saying that the world's population only doubles every 60 years. That means 6 billion more people in most of our lifetimes. While it is true that there are a few wide open spaces left that haven't been paved over, if you remove the ones that are not really suitable for dense habitation (like Siberia, the Sahara, etc.), we really don't have the space to house, feed, and clothe everyone. And even if we do, do we really want to pave over our entire world to avoid having to encourage the use of birth control and smaller families? I mean, we could probably turn Yosemite Park or the Amazon basin into apartment buildings and strip malls, and build power plants in the grand Canyon, but that doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

No matter what, we are going to need technological advances to support and increasing population. But we also need to slow population growth. It's pretty ridiculous that anyone can think that just because they know where there is some empty space that they could stick some people we will never ever be overpopulated.

I doubt the population of Earth will double ever again.

I doubt the population of Earth will double ever again.
Why exactly?

Why exactly?
Having kids is really expensive in industrialized society. :p

Who here can tell me the current population growth of Europe and or Japan? I dont have a point (yet) and i would really like to know.
I would look it up myself but i have no idea were to start

Or there could always be a giant famine where the excess people die so that the world would support its people again. Surely global warming should be what we worry about anyway.

Who here can tell me the current population growth of Europe and or Japan? I dont have a point (yet) and i would really like to know.
I would look it up myself but i have no idea were to start

Why do you care?

Who here can tell me the current population growth of Europe and or Japan? I dont have a point (yet) and i would really like to know.
I would look it up myself but i have no idea were to startI'd start here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) and pick a country in the drop bar.

Or there could always be a giant famine where the excess people die so that the world would support its people again. Surely global warming should be what we worry about anyway.
Well, I think the giant famine is what we are worried about.

For the opposite reason everyone else on this thread are making assumptions about the future.
I hate assumptions. after all to assume does make an ass out of u and me

Well, I think the giant famine is what we are worried about.

But at least if there is a giant famine, which can be avoided by having no more than 2 children, the world is fine. How exactly can the earth stop global warming once it reaches the irreversible stage?

I'd start here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/) and pick a country in the drop bar.
That's a very useful site. Thanks for linking it.

That's a very useful site. Thanks for linking it.
It almost makes the government budget worth it :D

But at least if there is a giant famine, which can be avoided by having no more than 2 children, the world is fine. How exactly can the earth stop global warming once it reaches the irreversible stage?
Well, I agree that we can do something about the overpopulation problem, which is exactly why we should be concerned. The people saying "we will never reach overpopulation" reminds me of a guy with 10 grand in the bank saying he will never run out of money.

But at least if there is a giant famine, which can be avoided by having no more than 2 children, the world is fine. How exactly can the earth stop global warming once it reaches the irreversible stage?How do you want people to avoid having no more than two children? The only good strategies I know are unacceptable for the current administration and they slash any funding to education organizations.

You're right. I would actually think that Canada is more inhabitable than the American mid-west simply because it rains more and there are more forests. Nonetheless, you have massive cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, greater Los Angeles, etc. that are built in the middle of the desert or in the middle of nowhere, and it starts to become clear that there's unlimited potential.

lol, city planning... plans for three huge new cities in the united states:

Big Mountain, Montana -- sister city of Butte
Settlers: Sao Paolo, Brazil
Population: ~5,000,000
Butte-Big Mountain metropolitan area population: 5,075,000

Plain, South Dakota -- sister city of Pierre
Settlers: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Population: ~4,000,000
Plain-Pierre met area pop: 4,060,000

Harleyville, Wyoming -- sister city of Casper
Settlers: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Population: ~6,000,000
Casper-Harleyville met area pop: 6,050,000

lol

and Canada...

Puck, Northwest Territory -- in the middle of nowhere
Settlers: Mexico City
Population: 9,000,000
Puck becomes the largest city in Canada.

and Russia...

Petroblastoffcock, Russia -- ITMON
Settlers: India
Population: 52,000,000
Area: 5 square miles

lol

Twice I worte a massive post for this and twice my computer crashed so I lost it. Grrr!

Teaching people to use condoms and birth control, and ensuring their access to both, is immoral. God would prefer that we bomb them into 0 population growth.

You're right. I would actually think that Canada is more inhabitable than the American mid-west simply because it rains more and there are more forests. Nonetheless, you have massive cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, greater Los Angeles, etc. that are built in the middle of the desert or in the middle of nowhere, and it starts to become clear that there's unlimited potential.
I live in Dallas, and we and Houston are nowhere near deserts. We get quite a bit of rain and typically have 90% or more humidity.

LA has chronic water supply problems and relies on the ability to divert and import water from northern california, which has much lower population. As that gets filled up with people, you have increasing problems.

Also, as I stated before, human beings need more than a place to sleep. They need arable land in which to grow their food (or have someone else do so).

Hmm… I'm inclined to agree with Ekland - actually pushing out the warlords would be the only way to fix the problems in a lot of these countries, long-term. I mean, how is aid going to help if it's all nicked by the warlords?
However, aid has its place… it's a good short-term solution, and for countries with uncorrupt governments, it works. But what Mugabe needs is a forcible overthrow, and it isn't going to be the people that do that.

Remember what happened the last time we told civilians to overthrow their government and then betrayed them…?

There's too many damned people in Cleveland, let alone the world at large! :eek:

Hmm… I'm inclined to agree with Ekland - actually pushing out the warlords would be the only way to fix the problems in a lot of these countries, long-term. I mean, how is aid going to help if it's all nicked by the warlords?
However, aid has its place… it's a good short-term solution, and for countries with uncorrupt governments, it works. But what Mugabe needs is a forcible overthrow, and it isn't going to be the people that do that.

Remember what happened the last time we told civilians to overthrow their government and then betrayed them…?

all right, so when warlord-overthrowing comes before the UN, we need Europe to vote for it.

I live in Dallas, and we and Houston are nowhere near deserts. We get quite a bit of rain and typically have 90% or more humidity.

well, as i said, in a desert OR in the middle of nowhere... :)

Nah. By that time we'll have developed plants that don't need soil to grow...
Most plants are capable of growing without soil. It's called hydroponics. Many vegetables are grown this way. The problem is it requires ALOT of water to grow food this way and lack of water is a contributes more to overpopluation than lack of space. We could create alot of desalination plants but that would cause other problems. An increase in fresh water could disrupt ocean currents. Ocean currents help move heat from the equator region towards the polar regions. So we could cause places like Northern Europe, Russia and Canada to become very cold and Africa, and Central America to become very hot (as a result both they would lose areable land).

We do have enough food to feed everyone in the world right now. The problem is it is more profitable to let the food rot in a warehouse than it is to sell it to the people in Africa and parts of Asia.

How exactly can the earth stop global warming once it reaches the irreversible stage?Apparently we have already hit that point. If we stopped producing greenhouse gasses right now, the planet will keep warming for 30 years. The Earth's average tempature would be four or five degrees celsius (7-9 farenheight) what it was in 1900.

Puck, Northwest Territory -- in the middle of nowhere
Settlers: Mexico City
Population: 9,000,000
Puck becomes the largest city in Canada.
Probably next to some diamond mine, so at least there would be a reasourse they could exploit.

I bet the fact that we have the ability to feed them is a real comfort to the Nigerans. :rolleyes:
The irony is that every country in africa that has not switched from a capitalist economy to a command economy currently has a food surplus.

The irony is that every country in africa that has not switched from a capitalist economy to a command economy currently has a food surplus.Provide some proper statistics please. It would be interesting to see if that was true.

Nah. By that time we'll have developed plants that don't need soil to grow...

Unfortunatly we still need trees and plants to produce the earths oxygen. Covering earth with sprawl would be a total disaster in two ways:

1) We will never have enough resources for everyone to have. Gradually the earth's resources will be so diminished we would probaly have to resort to using microshrimp from the sea which would cause have on the ocean's environment. Ocean polution has also damaged the ocean's environment.

2) The tax on the environment will lead to greater threat to the environment. This will lead to a worse condition especially if the ocean rises. We could lose more land to the ocean or land could become salted.

While some areas areas population is declining nobody is taking in effect of cross population. China actual policy on 1 child is pretty infective in the rural western areas were population is still growing and India's population will probaly over take China's in a few years.

Since nobody mention this:

Soylent Green is people!!!

well, as i said, in a desert OR in the middle of nowhere... :)
Great lets put it in a place that requires even more energy to move food and watter to ... not to mention put people in the position of consuming mass ammount of energy to cool

Consider the factors that determine whether or not a couple has a child: that child's profitability for the family. That is to say, if the cost of a child is high enough, it will prohibit the average couple from having a child. How does this affect population? As the cost of having a child is increased because resources are growing more sparse, it will begin to cost more and more to have a child. Food prices will go up. Gas prices will go up. Life will become more expensive, especially with three mouths instead of two. As a result, people will have to begin worrying about taking care of themselves, let alone their kids, and they will stop having children.

Essentially, the greatest thing we can do to help curb population is to educate people, not about the dangers of overpopulation, but simply for them to be considerate when having a child. As long as people are considering whether or not they can afford to bring a life into this world when they have a child the population issue will control itself. In the end, humanity will reach a natural balance where people will be able to afford to have just enough children to replace the current population. If they have any more the costs will be too high and others won't have kids and if they have any less the costs will lower and people will have kids to bring the system back to equilibrium. It's basic economics: the market always resolves to equilibrium.

Contrary to some more pessimistic views, this will all happen naturally, which will mean the will be no sudden jerk in the system causing pain and suffering. We won't run out of oil someday like a garden hose suddenly getting blocked off. Rather, our resources will run out from their sources, which means they will be reduced to a trickle, and then nothing at all. However, this change will be slow enough that humanity will be able to adapt and population will follow suit. In the end, I hardly believe population growth is something to be worried about at all.

And:

In the case of population, the naturally limiting theory has been shown through studies of acceleration of population to be superior to the traditional view that population grows exponentially. The fact of the matter is that population grows exponentially until it meets with limiting factors. At that point it gradually levels off at an equilibrium where the earth is self-sustaining. That's why population acceleration is currently negative: we're levelling off. If population growth was still accelerating it would be cause for concern, but consider all the major steps forward society has made of the last few hundred years. The agricultural revolution, the price revolution, the first and second industrial revolutions. All of these resulted in major population growth. While we can't establish causality between technological increase and population growth, we can establish a correlation. Population grows as our ability to sustain a higher population grows. As our rate of technological advances made it easier to support a higher population, our population followed suit.

Anyway, the point is that it seems unlikely that we are capable of exceding our carrying capacity on this earth. It's true that disease and famine no longer kill large numbers of people, but rather than being treated as a sign that we're growing too fast, it should be treated as a sign that we've conditioned the earth to hold more people. Many say that the earth can hold a certain number and no more, and while this is true on one level (there is an upper limit), it is misleading. The fact of the matter is that we are constantly pushing this ceiling, and what's more, by the time we even start to approach it the cost of having kids will be so prohibitive that no one will do it anyway.

Bottom line: The decision to have kids is linked to the decision that you can afford to have kids. The decision that you can afford to have kids is linked to whether or not there is room for them. As long as we maintain those links through education, there is no way we can exceed our carrying capacity.

You can't make unlimited food, there is a limit. Also, there will be no more living space. Overpopulation isn't only based on food supply.

You can't make unlimited food, there is a limit. Also, there will be no more living space. Overpopulation isn't only based on food supply.

I'm not saying that there is. I'm saying when there is less food around people have less kids until there is enough food around.

You can't make unlimited food, there is a limit. Also, there will be no more living space. Overpopulation isn't only based on food supply.It's not based on living space either. One thing we need most is water. Water for us, for the crops or livestock. There's parts of Europe that have problems with this. Imagine what it's like for countries that can't afford the expensive solutions.

I'm not saying that there is. I'm saying when there is less food around people have less kids until there is enough food around.
Has that worked in 3rd world countries today?

It's not based on living space either. One thing we need most is water. Water for us, for the crops or livestock. There's parts of Europe that have problems with this. Imagine what it's like for countries that can't afford the expensive solutions.

That's what I'm saying though. The solution is simply to teach people that too many other people means less for everyone. Most people in developed countries get this. They don't have kids unless they can afford to. We don't need drastic action; we merely need to educate people of the costs of having children. If you point out that if a village in the middle of nowhere has more children it will have more mouths to feed, it might just stop having as many children.

If, however, you give it edicts that it doesn't understand, it's just going to ignore you.

Has that worked in 3rd world countries today?

First, that goes back to lack of education, which I've stressed as a problem. As nation become more developed they have less children. As the 3rd world develops this problem will correct itself. There is no too late point for overpopulation. The strain on the human population will cause us to limit ourselves, by famine and disease if necessary, before the strain on the earth is unbearable or even damaging. If we want to avoid the famine and disease, as I would assume we do, we simply need to get the message out that you shouldn't have kids unless you can afford to. Again, edicts are a step in the wrong direction. Education should be the solution to this problem.

Are you familiar with the general shape of a population curve? The term carrying capacity?


You can be above the carrying capacity of an area, but the small problem is that destructive farming (generally what is used to allow more headroom) eventually destroys farmland, causing the carrying capacity to decrease dramatically, and more to the point, a drastic collapse in population. We've most likely overshot, and it's only a matter of time before the destructive methods of farming we use (slash and burn, artificial fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation) give out.

Are you familiar with the general shape of a population curve? The term carrying capacity?


You can be above the carrying capacity of an area, but the small problem is that destructive farming (generally what is used to allow more headroom) eventually destroys farmland, causing the carrying capacity to decrease dramatically, and more to the point, a drastic collapse in population. We've most likely overshot, and it's only a matter of time before the destructive methods of farming we use (slash and burn, artificial fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation) give out.

That's not a matter of population, that's a matter of environmentalism, which I whole-heartedly support. We can manage our resources better than we currently are, and we should be, but even so, these resources aren't going to suddenly be cut-off. We will gradually run out. Oil is a great example. In Canada gas prices just went over a dollar, quite high for us. It's not that there's suddenly no oil, it's that it's becoming more and more difficult to make oil profitable. What does that mean? Prices go up. In turn, alternatives become cheaper. By the time we run out of oil the cost of gas will be so prohibitively high that an alternative will have already been introduced into the marketplace. Alternatives have already been proposed and as oil costs more and more, that investment becomes more and more attractive. The same thing will occur with other areas, and we've seen it happen. Farms switching from pesticides and fertilizers to organic farming. Logging companies growing trees in areas they have cut down. All of these are indications of the system slowly beginning to correct itself.

That said, we certainly need initiatives to make our fossil fuels burn as cleanly as possible and to do what we can to preserve the rest of the environment, whether it be our trees or our fields, but while we still have a long way to go, we are making progress. We've been excessive in the fast, but as we've started to feel the effects of our excesses, we've learned to be smarter with our resources. This is all environmental though. On the basic issue of overpopulation, the fact that all of these things that drive us artificially over the carrying capacity of earth will fizzle rather than suddenly stop is an indication that the human race will have the time to adapt to the necessary chages we have to make. Fields aren't suddenly going to stop producing anything. They'll produce less until it makes more sense to use less intensive farming methods, as they're already doing. We won't run out of trees, but those left will be so tough to get at that we'll start replanting them, as we're already doing. We will run out of oil, but it will peder off in a fashion that will force gas prices up and force us to gradually rethink our ways and come up with a solution long before there is any major crisis.

If you want to support something that we cause irreversible damage in, try supporting the fight against global warming. That war is worth your effort.

I always thought these overpopulation things were a joke based on the notion that man was no smarter than beast. If the population of deer levels out in a certain area after a while because there is no food left, shouldn't man, bound by the same laws of nature, also level out in population?
Of course, it ignores that man can use the land more effeciently with time, unlike deer.

I always thought these overpopulation things were a joke based on the notion that man was no smarter than beast. If the population of deer levels out in a certain area after a while because there is no food left, shouldn't man, bound by the same laws of nature, also level out in population?
Of course, it ignores that man can use the land more effeciently with time, unlike deer.
But no matter how efficiently you use the land, there is still a limit as to how much food you can get given the resources that we have. It's possible that technological advances will stave off overpopulation for a while, but overpopulation, for from being an impossibility, is an invetibility. The only question is, how long.

We could use our superior intelligence to slow population growth, seeing as we already have the technological advances of safe and effective birth control. That, coupled with technological advances related to production, could hold our problems off for a while until we can find another planet to settle.

That's not a matter of population, that's a matter of environmentalism, which I whole-heartedly support. We can manage our resources better than we currently are, and we should be, but even so, these resources aren't going to suddenly be cut-off. We will gradually run out. Oil is a great example. In Canada gas prices just went over a dollar, quite high for us. It's not that there's suddenly no oil, it's that it's becoming more and more difficult to make oil profitable. What does that mean? Prices go up. In turn, alternatives become cheaper. By the time we run out of oil the cost of gas will be so prohibitively high that an alternative will have already been introduced into the marketplace. Alternatives have already been proposed and as oil costs more and more, that investment becomes more and more attractive. The same thing will occur with other areas, and we've seen it happen. Farms switching from pesticides and fertilizers to organic farming. Logging companies growing trees in areas they have cut down. All of these are indications of the system slowly beginning to correct itself.

That said, we certainly need initiatives to make our fossil fuels burn as cleanly as possible and to do what we can to preserve the rest of the environment, whether it be our trees or our fields, but while we still have a long way to go, we are making progress. We've been excessive in the fast, but as we've started to feel the effects of our excesses, we've learned to be smarter with our resources. This is all environmental though. On the basic issue of overpopulation, the fact that all of these things that drive us artificially over the carrying capacity of earth will fizzle rather than suddenly stop is an indication that the human race will have the time to adapt to the necessary changes we have to make. Fields aren't suddenly going to stop producing anything. They'll produce less until it makes more sense to use less intensive farming methods, as they're already doing. We won't run out of trees, but those left will be so tough to get at that we'll start replanting them, as we're already doing. We will run out of oil, but it will peder off in a fashion that will force gas prices up and force us to gradually rethink our ways and come up with a solution long before there is any major crisis.

If you want to support something that we cause irreversible damage in, try supporting the fight against global warming. That war is worth your effort.
Organic farming has reduced yields when compared to non-organic methods. That's the problem, the methods we use to produce crops produce enough food to feed us all, but with the price of decreased productivity in the future. There are many places where once prime farmland has been worn down through erosion to nothing but rock, others in which prime farmland has been turned into a pesticide wasteland, anything that grows there is unfit for human consumption. In other cases, our use of pesticides has killed off/eliminated natural predators, in others our mass agriculture has lead to horrid cases of blights and such, uncontrollable without the use of massive amounts of fungicides.

the US midwest (counting the upper Midwest -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) has more people than Canada and you know how huge Canada is... you want to talk about minimally populated areas, talk about all of Canada outside of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver! hehe

Or Australia! 80% of our continent is bone dry desert. :p Oh, that and our largest city has just 4.2 million people (and I happen to live in it).

Factual impossibility? Now I've heard it all. Ever heard of an 'ecological footprint'? You seen how much resources cities suck up?

To explain this premise, I'll start by pointing to the guy made famous for his predictions, but remembered for his inaccuracy: Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus was an English Economist who's writings in the early 19th Century predicted that unless population growth was curtailed, starvation would be rampant and permanent. At the time of his writings, the world population had reached an estimated 1 billion people for the first time and, by his estimates, the world was facing a crisis as it could only produce enough food for a 20% increase (for a total of 1.2 billion people) before the amount of people in the world surpassed the amount of food producable to sustain it.

Needless to say, this didn't happen.

What was interesting was that Malthus' estimates were correct. At the time of his writings, the world was capable of only having 1.2 billion people before there was a genuine food shortage.

There are now almost 6.5 billion people in the world. So what happened?

Where Malthus goofed up was that he failed to take into account the changes in technology that have increased human efficiency ever since Caveman Thag rubbed two pieces of flint together to make an easy spark. Advances in technology have increased the overall food supply disproportionately faster than human population needs. For example, between 1960 and 1999, the estimated world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion. In that same period of time, technological advances have quadrupled the world's food supply while only using a total of 5% more land.

This is why I have problems when I hear environmental groups claim that the world can only support 12 billion people or whatever. People have exponentially improved their ability to provide food for themselves through technological changes since before we had writing. All of history supports the notion that this trend will continue; the incredible leaps in technology that we've made just in the last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever have given us good reason to believe that technology will continue to develop faster than ever thanks to the communications revolution.

So why worry about overpopulation? People will figure out a way to deal with it and the availablity and supply of food will continue to grow faster than the world's population.

Edit note: this isn't to suggest that starvation will ever be entirely eliminated; only to argue that the world will always be able to produce enough food to support its human population. Distribution is a whole other matter.

You're 100% right. Except (Maybe someone already said this, I didn't read the whole thread) that most advances in technology that we can do now require stem cells and genetic engineering, which even though there is nothing wrong with them, a lot of people don't agree with. So if these advances in technology aren't allowed to take place because of these people than global overpopulation is a possibility.

Calas

You're 100% right. Except (Maybe someone already said this, I didn't read the whole thread) that most advances in technology that we can do now require stem cells and genetic engineering, which even though there is nothing wrong with them, a lot of people don't agree with. So if these advances in technology aren't allowed to take place because of these people than global overpopulation is a possibility.

Calas
So wait, we are going to start eating stem cells? And what are we to do when our supply of fresh water runs out, clone some more?

I didn't mean eating stem cells. I meant use that technology to help make food grow faster and bigger. You knew that, you were just looking for something to argue against me. Water, there is plenty water on this planetfor a trillion people. Most of it is salt, but getting salt from water isn't that hard. It's expensive but if we want the human race to live on, we will have to stop thinking of everything in terms of money.

Calas

I didn't mean eating stem cells. I meant use that technology to help make food grow faster and bigger. You knew that, you were just looking for something to argue against me. Water, there is plenty water on this planetfor a trillion people. Most of it is salt, but getting salt from water isn't that hard. It's expensive but if we want the human race to live on, we will have to stop thinking of everything in terms of money.

Calas

That money isn't just peices of paper. It represents resources. That's why desalinization is so expensive. That's the point. Every time you add people, you require more resources. You can stretch them as much as possible, but ultimately they are limited and you will eventually get to the point where you can't stretch them any farther. Genetically modified foods may grow faster and bigger, but they won't do so without a larger investment in at least SOME resources, namely soil, fertilizer, and water.

We don't need money, and anyway why are we debating this. By the time we have this huge population, we will be on loads of other planets anyway, so there's loads more places.

Then again as the old chinese proverb says "everything has a limit and nothing is impossible except where those two statements contradict eachother" and I stick by that philosophy more than any other.

Calas

We don't need money, and anyway why are we debating this. By the time we have this huge population, we will be on loads of other planets anyway, so there's loads more places.

Then again as the old chinese proverb says "everything has a limit and nothing is impossible except where those two statements contradict eachother" and I stick by that philosophy more than any other.

Calas
I didn't say we needed money. I said we need resources. We spend money now for resources, but whatever we do to get resources in the future we will still be dependent on resources.

The argument that we will be on "loads of other planets" soon and therefore shouldn't try to do anything to curb overpopulation reminds me of the religious nutcase argument that global warming doesn't matter because the rapture will come first. Considering that we haven't even sent a manned mission to another planet or any missions outside of our solar system yet, extraplanetary colonization is likely still 100s of years away. In the meantime, at current growth rates we will have 24 billion people on Earth in 80 years. I think it's something that is, at very least, worth thinking about.

I didn't mean eating stem cells. I meant use that technology to help make food grow faster and bigger. You knew that, you were just looking for something to argue against me. Water, there is plenty water on this planetfor a trillion people. Most of it is salt, but getting salt from water isn't that hard. It's expensive but if we want the human race to live on, we will have to stop thinking of everything in terms of money.

Calas
You're still running up against the wall of nutrients, soil ones.

The argument that we will be on "loads of other planets" soon and therefore shouldn't try to do anything to curb overpopulation reminds me of the religious nutcase argument that global warming doesn't matter because the rapture will come first.

this reminds me of something funny i read a while ago.

an anti-environmentalist parable (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/i_think_i_despise_anti_environmentalists_as_much_as_i_do_anti_evolutionists/)

Imagine that a scientist and one of these deranged libertarian right-wing anti-environmentalist science deniers go out for a drive one day...

LIB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: <in a squeaky voice> No lake!

LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: <squeaks> 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: <squeaks>Ditto!

We can last to about 200 billion people. That'll take hundreds of years. Who knows hat might have happened by then?

Calas

We can last to about 200 billion people. That'll take hundreds of years. Who knows hat might have happened by then?

Calas
What? Proof?

That's the point. There is no proof. It's all speculation.

Calas

We can last to about 200 billion people. That'll take hundreds of years. Who knows hat might have happened by then?

Calas
I'm glad you know exactly what is going to happen. No need to take reasonable actions now to plan for the future.

That's the point. There is no proof. It's all speculation.

Calas
But the point is, you can speculate and make decisions that would attempt to avert disaster, or you could say "hey, anything can happen, let's do nothing and hope it will work out for the best."

I don't think the problem is overpopulation itself, but the average age of the population. Humans were never intended to live as long as they do now, and the next generation is going to live phenomenally longer still. People being 100 years old or more are common these days. It's going to reach a point where we've got so many old people that they cause an imbalance, and there just aren't enough young workers to provide for themselves AND their over-aged relatives. We're already having problems in some countries regarding state pensions, for instance.

But no matter how efficiently you use the land, there is still a limit as to how much food you can get given the resources that we have. It's possible that technological advances will stave off overpopulation for a while, but overpopulation, for from being an impossibility, is an invetibility. The only question is, how long.

We could use our superior intelligence to slow population growth, seeing as we already have the technological advances of safe and effective birth control. That, coupled with technological advances related to production, could hold our problems off for a while until we can find another planet to settle.
The only way the planet can run out of resources is if atoms start drifting into space faster than they come in. As long as we have matter, energy, and human ingenuity, we will always exist.

The only way the planet can run out of resources is if atoms start drifting into space faster than they come in. As long as we have matter, energy, and human ingenuity, we will always exist.That sounds nice, except that we have plenty of water atoms. 2/3rds of the world are covered in water. We still can't use them, though...

That sounds nice, except that we have plenty of water atoms. 2/3rds of the world are covered in water. We still can't use them, though...
Nope, salt water is not economical to drink quite yet. But the ocean is a good source of salt, a place where we drill oil, and where we harvest water molecules we use to make hydrogen bombs. What could the cavemen do with the ocean? Fishing is all that jumps to my mind, at least till we controlled fire.

The only way the planet can run out of resources is if atoms start drifting into space faster than they come in. As long as we have matter, energy, and human ingenuity, we will always exist.
I just can't fathom how everyone is so sure of this stuff. I mean, it's possible that we can make it on the resources that we have when we have 24 billion people, but unless you KNOW exactly how to do it, I don't see how you can bank on it. In the meantime, we already have safe and effective birth control and the means to distribute it along with information about it. So why not try to use what we have in case this vision of infinite resources turns out not to be true? I mean, on some level you have to accept at least the possibility that we will reach a point where our population is growing faster than our ability to provide sufficient resources. Not to mention, I think it would nice for my descendents to live in a world that still has things like natural, unspoiled wilderness, at least for as long as possible.

Also, conserving all of these atoms in usable form is going to require that we do this thing called recycling, is it not?

Nope, salt water is not economical to drink quite yet. But the ocean is a good source of salt, a place where we drill oil, and where we harvest water molecules we use to make hydrogen bombs. What could the cavemen do with the ocean? Fishing is all that jumps to my mind, at least till we controlled fire.And how quickly did the population rise during that time?
The global population is growing faster than we are learning to harvest what resources are unavailable to us. Harvesting things from the bottom of the ocean is more expensive and difficult than space travel...

I just can't fathom how everyone is so sure of this stuff. I mean, it's possible that we can make it on the resources that we have when we have 24 billion people, but unless you KNOW exactly how to do it, I don't see how you can bank on it. In the meantime, we already have safe and effective birth control and the means to distribute it along with information about it. So why not try to use what we have in case this vision of infinite resources turns out not to be true? I mean, on some level you have to accept at least the possibility that we will reach a point where our population is growing faster than our ability to provide sufficient resources. Not to mention, I think it would nice for my descendents to live in a world that still has things like natural, unspoiled wilderness, at least for as long as possible.
And when will this doomsday scenario occur? It's been forecasted for hundreds if not thousands of years and has yet to materialize. So far, Nostradamus has a better track record than the crowd that predicts overpopulation.

Also, conserving all of these atoms in usable form is going to require that we do this thing called recycling, is it not?
Not at all. Matter and energy doesn't just disappear. Recycling is just a short-sighted goal of conserving the atoms that are useful today. Which is damn fine if your a company that requires low aluminum prices, but pretty sucky if you pioneer a whole new type of metal.

That car-ride parable was hilarious, and shows exactly what's wrong with all this "science will save us, somehow" bollocks. The people who are talking about ecological footprints and carrying capacities ARE scientists. Topsoil is being depleted and we don't have any substitute for it whatsoever, let alone a viable one. We have the replacememnt for freshwater but it would require a huge amount of energy.

Sure, science has increased food production to keep up with population growth so far but it's ridiculous to assume that we can grow recklessly and ignore what scientists are saying because somehow they'll come up with a solution at the last minute.

The global population is growing faster than we are learning to harvest what resources are unavailable to us.

But that's not true. Our ability to produce food is dramatically outpacing the rise in global population, even with the population increasing at the rate it is. Don't believe it? Show me the numbers, baby!

And how quickly did the population rise during that time?


About the same, percentage wise. The world population is increasing at an exponential rate, which it has been for most of human history. If there are 10,000 people, a 1% increase is 100 people. If there are 6.5 billion people, a 1% increase is 65,000,000 people.

And when will this doomsday scenario occur? It's been forecasted for hundreds if not thousands of years and has yet to materialize. So far, Nostradamus has a better track record than the crowd that predicts overpopulation.

so the civilizations of rapa nui, the maya, and the anasazi are all still going strong then, yes?

But that's not true. Our ability to produce food is dramatically outpacing the rise in global population, even with the population increasing at the rate it is. Don't believe it? Show me the numbers, baby!Muahahaha. I didn't say food, did I? I was hinting that we do or will lack water or manganese, for example.

Harvesting things from the bottom of the ocean is more expensive and difficult than space travel...

You either overestimate the ease of space travel or underestimate the ease of ocean-floor harvesting. Perhaps both? Think about it.

About the same, percentage wise. The world population is increasing at an exponential rate, which it has been for most of human history. If there are 10,000 people, a 1% increase is 100 people. If there are 6.5 billion people, a 1% increase is 65,000,000 people.Exactly, about the same, percentage wise. They, however, were no where near the limits of their population as we are today.

Muahahaha. I didn't say food, did I? I was hinting that we do or will lack water or manganese, for example.

Good point. But I'm not sure that the principle doesn't still apply. I'm not aware of any worldwide natural resource shortages.

Not at all. Matter and energy doesn't just disappear. Recycling is just a short-sighted goal of conserving the atoms that are useful today. Which is damn fine if your a company that requires low aluminum prices, but pretty sucky if you pioneer a whole new type of metal.
You do realize that what you're proposing, taking raw sewage and converting it into food, is near impossible?

All we need is a nice bubonic plague to wipe out most of the earth's inhabitants...yesssh, yesshh...nice, bubonic plague...nicie...then there will be enough to go around! MUAHAHAH. heh. ha. heh. *twitches and clears throat* ...what we need to do is conserve what we have. Oil, water, food, whatever. The world's supply of oil is gonna exhaust itself in 50-100 years or so, therefore it would be necessary to find other means of heating, electricity, etc. On the topic of food...in China, they limited the amount of offspring allowed to 1-2 children (if I'm recalling correctly), and punishments for that extra Johnny Junior *cough* result in heavier taxes and, in some cases, liquidation/eviction. Could that work with other countries?

Excuse me if I have no idea what I'm talking about...I just briefly skimmed over the thread. :D

You either overestimate the ease of space travel or underestimate the ease of ocean-floor harvesting. Perhaps both? Think about it.There's a space station. There's been another. Why is it easier to travel to the moon than to travel to the bottom of the ocean?
I'm not sure if you've got any experience in Raw Materials Sciences...

And when will this doomsday scenario occur? It's been forecasted for hundreds if not thousands of years and has yet to materialize. So far, Nostradamus has a better track record than the crowd that predicts overpopulation.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't going to. That's my whole point. The discussion here started with someone saying that overpopulation was an "impossibility" because it hadn't happened before. That's the classic example of the "argument from ingorance", not to mention childish hubris. I don't know when it will happen, but if there is anything we can do to prevent it from happening we should. Should the fact that I've never had a heart attack prevent me from watching what I eat and refraining from smoking? Should the fact that I've driven drunk before without an accident make me think it's ok to drink a bottle of whiskey and hop in the car?

Frankly, we are already starting to see results of overpopulation in various areas. We can keep spreading these problems out if we want to, but eventually we will run out of space.

And even if we can keep supporting a population up through the 100 billion mark, there is the matter of our quality of life. I personally don't want to see the entire world covered in high rise apartment buildings and nuclear reactors.

You do realize that what you're proposing, taking raw sewage and converting it into food, is near impossible?

Raw sewage, as in, sludge? There's a sludge factory near where I live, and you can smell it nearly a mile away. D'you think people are going to consume others'....waste?

Raw sewage, as in, sludge? There's a sludge factory near where I live, and you can smell it nearly a mile away. D'you think people are going to consume others'....waste?
He's proposing reclaiming the component atoms of waste products and reintroducing them into the ecosystem.


Yeah, right. That will happen when hell freezes over.

And how quickly did the population rise during that time?
The global population is growing faster than we are learning to harvest what resources are unavailable to us. Harvesting things from the bottom of the ocean is more expensive and difficult than space travel...
Among who? The Western world isn't experincing much population growth, and we have great utilization of natural resoruces that is ever increasing.

The Middle East certainly isn't going to utilize its resources very well when they have no capitalism, and thus no real ability to improve utilization. In that case, yes, "overpopulation" can occur.

Among who? The Western world isn't experincing much population growth, and we have great utilization of natural resoruces that is ever increasing.

The Middle East certainly isn't going to utilize its resources very well when they have no capitalism, and thus no real ability to improve utilization. In that case, yes, "overpopulation" can occur.
A utilization that is slowly destroying the ecosystem as it stands. No one is claiming that as it stands, we can produce enough. The problem is, if we keep it up, we're going to destroy most of our productive farmland and destroy our resources in order to provide a first-world lifestyle for ever more people.

He's proposing reclaiming the component atoms of waste products and reintroducing them into the ecosystem.


Yeah, right. That will happen when hell freezes over.

Hahahah. Well, that makes sense...thanks for the little clarification; I got a little disgusted.

Anyway, I "googled" up "China's population limit," and it did turn out that Chinese family units may produce only one child per couple. It's an interesting philosophy, but can it work? The Chinese, for centuries, have relied on their children to work, provide income, and take care of those who cannot produce to the economy.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't going to.

We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

........lakes?
I'm feeling awfully dense today. Damn....maybe I should cover threads from the beginning and not catch on at the end.
I'm out, kids. If you have any other ideas, telegram it to me.

And this one:

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

Good point. But I'm not sure that the principle doesn't still apply. I'm not aware of any worldwide natural resource shortages.Manganese is a strategic metal, which is so because an entire industry depends on it (its needed for any type of steel), it is only available in certain parts of the world, and there is no substitute that can be created in labs.
We still have enough manganese today, but eventually, we may run out. Oil is something we have a problem with today (granted, we have enough resources right now and there's no telling how long it will last, but we have a shortage due to the fact that there aren't enough refineries to deal with the crude oil) but manganese could well be a problem some time.
There's some metal that I know of that we've run out of, but the exam on RawMatSci was like a multiple choice test without multiple choices (so I can tell you that Uranium 235 occurs in a natural concentration of 0.177% but not which metal that was :D )

Among who? The Western world isn't experincing much population growth, and we have great utilization of natural resoruces that is ever increasing.

The Middle East certainly isn't going to utilize its resources very well when they have no capitalism, and thus no real ability to improve utilization. In that case, yes, "overpopulation" can occur.That's the point I'm trying to make. That "overpopulation" is currently starving the Nigerans and will soon be starving neighboring countries.

........lakes?
I'm feeling awfully dense today. Damn....maybe I should cover threads from the beginning and not catch on at the end.
I'm out, kids. If you have any other ideas, telegram it to me.

Check out page 8, it's pretty funny.

The irony is that we probably do have the ability to feed them, but not the will.

It's not a question of will. Africa doesn't need food poured into it, it needs encouragment and support to set up effective employment and agriculture, so they will look after themselves.

It's not a question of will. Africa doesn't need food poured into it, it needs encouragment and support to set up effective employment and agriculture, so they will look after themselves.Muahaha. That's slightly wrong. Africa *needed* encouragement and support to set up effective employment and agriculture, now that will do jack shit to feed people.
The problem is, we went to "encourage" them when we colonized them. I don't think they want our "encouragement". (sorry, I'm being a bit too cynical...)

A utilization that is slowly destroying the ecosystem as it stands. No one is claiming that as it stands, we can produce enough. The problem is, if we keep it up, we're going to destroy most of our productive farmland and destroy our resources in order to provide a first-world lifestyle for ever more people.
If the enviorment will is being destroyed, prices will rise slowly over time and people will respond by making more effecient and cleaner methods of extracting minerals from the enviorment.
Which is...happening?
Besides, why do we neccessarily need land to farm in the far future? Is it not possible that, in the far future, we will have nothing but oribital space stations utilizing hydroponic farming?

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't going to. That's my whole point. The discussion here started with someone saying that overpopulation was an "impossibility" because it hadn't happened before. That's the classic example of the "argument from ingorance", not to mention childish hubris. I don't know when it will happen, but if there is anything we can do to prevent it from happening we should. Should the fact that I've never had a heart attack prevent me from watching what I eat and refraining from smoking? Should the fact that I've driven drunk before without an accident make me think it's ok to drink a bottle of whiskey and hop in the car?
Should I be preparing for Y2K in Y2K6?
All I am saying is that this "overpopulation crisis" has been forecasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, with specific dates mentioned. If they were right, I'd be dead. Nostradamus has a better track record than the overpopulation crowd at the moment.

You do realize that what you're proposing, taking raw sewage and converting it into food, is near impossible?
Manure could be quite useful for your backyard garden, if you don't mind the smell.
As far as I know, most of raw sewage doesn't remain raw sewage for ever.

That's the point I'm trying to make. That "overpopulation" is currently starving the Nigerans and will soon be starving neighboring countries.
What point are you making? Stupid governments are killing us by keeping us from accomplishing what we can? Hell, you don't need to pull out numbers to make me agree with you on that. :p

What point are you making? Stupid governments are killing us by keeping us from accomplishing what we can? Hell, you don't need to pull out numbers to make me agree with you on that. :pYou're not the only one on this forum ;)

Should I be preparing for Y2K in Y2K6?

Forget Y10K or whatever! We've got even bigger problems! The Universe is going to implode on itself!!!

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/18/cosmic.crunch/

That's right! In a mere 10 billion years... a blip on the time-space radar screen, the universe's gravitational pull will overcome itself, drawing all matter into a super-condensed mass, destroying everything in the Universe before exploding into a big bang! All life will be destroyed! It won't matter how many people are starving because they'll all be dead! It's a mathematical certainty! It's not that this MIGHT happen... it's something that WILL happen! We need to start preparing now! We've got to do something... SOMETHING I SAY!

This entire fucking topic is based on a very weak no-limits fallacy.

Also, I am absolutely amazed that someone managed to say something stupider than the OP:


Should I be preparing for Y2K in Y2K6?
All I am saying is that this "overpopulation crisis" has been forecasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, with specific dates mentioned. If they were right, I'd be dead. Nostradamus has a better track record than the overpopulation crowd at the moment.


When, in the past, have predictions of over-population been backed up by hard science and evidence outside of "SHOOTING STAR! OMG THE WORLDS GUNNA END"?

Overpopulation is a factual possibility. The earth has a finite amount of water, salty or fresh. The earth also has a limited amount of space. And if we cut down all the forests to make room, we're screwed because we have more and more people breathing out CO2 and less trees taking out the C. Plus, bigger populations bring bigger problems. You have more people willing to be warlords. You have more crinimals. Technology is limited by the size of atoms and whatnot. You can't use quarks to make silicon chips. You can't go much further than that unless things get bigger and atoms get smaller.

That's the classic example of the "argument from ingorance", not to mention childish hubris.[QUOTE]

Oh yeah? Well you're a big doo-doo head!

[QUOTE]I don't know when it will happen, but if there is anything we can do to prevent it from happening we should. Should the fact that I've never had a heart attack prevent me from watching what I eat and refraining from smoking? Should the fact that I've driven drunk before without an accident make me think it's ok to drink a bottle of whiskey and hop in the car?

But you've missed the point--the point being that on the whole, there will always be enough food to support the world's population.

Frankly, we are already starting to see results of overpopulation in various areas.

And for the millionth time, no one is arguing that there will ever be an end to starvation. Starvation isn't caused by overpopulation. There's enough food and there will always be enough food--the problem is distribution.

Overpopulation is a factual possibility. The earth has a finite amount of water, salty or fresh. The earth also has a limited amount of space. And if we cut down all the forests to make room, we're screwed because we have more and more people breathing out CO2 and less trees taking out the C. Plus, bigger populations bring bigger problems. You have more people willing to be warlords. You have more crinimals. Technology is limited by the size of atoms and whatnot. You can't use quarks to make silicon chips. You can't go much further than that unless things get bigger and atoms get smaller.

To be fair, ocean algae makes up a much larger portion of the Earth's CO2 -> O2 capabilities than trees and other land plants.

There are always overzealous predictions. We don't necessarily know what the ultimate carrying capacity of the earth is. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. And we won't know what it is until we get there. By that time it will be too late. It COULD be 200 billion, but then it COULD be 7 billion. Is it worth taking the risk, or would it be better to slow down population growth as we try to find ways to increase productive capacity? That way, all this great productive technology could be give us unprecedented prosperity rather than simply be a means to continue our increasingly tenuous existence.

But you've missed the point--the point being that on the whole, there will always be enough food to support the world's population.

There may or may not be. You cannot depend on un-predicted technology to ever advance our ability to grow food, this is a no-limits fallacy of the highest order. We are going to reach a point where human civilization's ecological footprint does not fit on the Earth. Whether that is in ten, twenty, or a hundred years is irrelevent, we need to do what we can to stave this off as long as possible. We have the technology today to do so, we do not have the technology to support a population in the hundreds of billions.

Forget Y10K or whatever! We've got even bigger problems! The Universe is going to implode on itself!!!

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/18/cosmic.crunch/

That's right! In a mere 10 billion years... a blip on the time-space radar screen, the universe's gravitational pull will overcome itself, drawing all matter into a super-condensed mass, destroying everything in the Universe before exploding into a big bang! All life will be destroyed! It won't matter how many people are starving because they'll all be dead! It's a mathematical certainty! It's not that this MIGHT happen... it's something that WILL happen! We need to start preparing now! We've got to do something... SOMETHING I SAY!


****! Dammit, we gotta do something! NOOKZ! NOOKZ! We gotta nook the center of the universe to propel the ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY back out! :p

This entire fucking topic is based on a very weak no-limits fallacy.
Fallacy? I thought the conservation of matter and energy is a central tenet of most scientific theories outside of Quantum Mechanics? Isn't that "no limit"?
The only way a serious overpopulation problem can occur is if a major shift in a very short period of time. Like, say, a nuclear war, or the sun exploding.

Also, I am absolutely amazed that someone managed to say something stupider than the OP:
Is this flaming? At the very least, I think "dumber" is better than "stupider."

When, in the past, have predictions of over-population been backed up by hard science and evidence outside of "SHOOTING STAR! OMG THE WORLDS GUNNA END"?
Plenty of books had some base to their claims. Like the 1968 classic "The Population Bomb."
Written by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Writings

this reminds me of something funny i read a while ago.

an anti-environmentalist parable (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/i_think_i_despise_anti_environmentalists_as_much_as_i_do_anti_evolutionists/)

Imagine that a scientist and one of these deranged libertarian right-wing anti-environmentalist science deniers go out for a drive one day...

LIB: Isn't this wonderful? I have a desire to drive, and sufficient surplus income to purchase a vehicle, and the market and technology provide me with one. Praise Jesus! Praise Adam Smith!

SCI: Uh, yeah, OK...but you know, the way you're driving is neither safe nor economical. Could you maybe slow down a little?

LIB: I decide what is economical; I can afford the gas. As for safety, I have insurance, and the little whatchamacallit meter in front of me goes all the way up to 140. I haven't exceeded the limit yet.

SCI: What you can do and what is safe and reasonable to do are two different things. If you want to experience natural selection first hand, that would be OK with me, except for the fact that we're both in the same car.
By the way, that's a lake a couple of miles ahead, and you're headed straight for it.

LIB: Lake? We haven't encountered any lakes in our travels so far. We don't have to worry about lakes. History is our guide, and it clearly says, "no lakes".

SCI: Well, yes, there's a lake right there in front of us. You can see it as well as I can, I hope. It's even marked right here on our map. I suggest you turn left just a little bit and steer clear of it.

LIB: Oh, you pessimistic doomsayers. You're always gloomily predicting our demise, and you're always wrong. We hit a mud puddle a few miles back, and see? No problems.

SCI: I'm only predicting doom if you keep driving as foolishly as you have so far. I suggest that we start on this alternate route now, so that we don't have to swerve too sharply at the last minute.

LIB: There is no lake. I like driving fast and straight. The last thing I want to do is turn left.

SCI: What do you mean, there is no lake? It's right there! And we are getting closer by the minute! Why are you accelerating?

LIB: That there is a lake is only your opinion. We need to study this, and get more input.
(LIB reaches down beneath the seat. His hand reemerges with a sock over it.)

SOCK: <in a squeaky voice> No lake!

LIB: Hmmm. We seem to have two opinions here. Since Mr Socky has taken economic considerations into account and you have not, I can judge which is the better and more informed. Sound science says there is no lake. Or if there is, we can accept the compromise solution that it will disappear before we reach it.

SCI: We are headed for that lake at 80 miles per hour, in a car driven by a lunatic. Slow down and turn left!

LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?

SOCK: <squeaks> 's alright!

SCI: I have been telling you what the solution is for the last 3 miles. Slow down. Turn. Now. How is science going to save you if you insist on ignoring it?

LIB: Aha! Look! There's a pier extending out into the lake! I told you that technology would be our salvation. You scientists always underestimate the power of the free market.

SCI: Jebus. That's a rickety 40-foot wooden dock. You can't drive at 90 miles per hour onto a short pier! BRAKE! TURN!

LIB: You are getting emotional, and can be ignored. Market forces and the science and engineering sector will respond to our needs by assembling a floating bridge before we hit the end. Or perhaps they will redesign our car to fly. Or dispatch a ferry or submarine to our location. We cannot predict the specific solution, but we can trust that one will emerge.
I've always wanted a flying car.

SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: <squeaks>Ditto!

First of all, hilarious.

Second of all, a misrepresentation of what some of us (some of us who are saying overpopulation won't happen are just idiots) are trying to say.

The problem with this example is that the lake comes suddenly with no effects upon the car or the driver until we actually reach it. The pier is a nice touch to explain us overextending ourselves, but it still isn't quite true. As I pointed out before, we feel the effects of overpopulation long before they reach critical levels. I would think most of would agree we'ren't at a critical level right now, but the price of gas is going up as we use more and more and farmers are starting to be able to produce less using intensive farming techniques.

The analogy I would give which represents the two sides more accurately is that there's a swamp ahead, and that both of them see it but only the scientist starts to worry. The libertarian (and I don't like being considered a libertarian, which is why I'm content to still have him be an idiot) sees the swamp but comes to an interesting conclusion:

LIB: My goal is to have as smooth a ride as possible and probably, given my idiotic nature, to drive as fast as possible. As I get closer and closer to this swamp, the ground will get muckier and muckier, which will reduce how much I enjoy my drive and how fast I should drive. Thus, I should not get too close to the swamp. I will change the course of my car as I get closer to the swamp to make sure I don't get stuck in it but so that I don't have to do anything drastic and can still enjoy my drive.

SCI: Why are you letting yourself get close though? We've seen the swamp. Why not just make a hard right now when we've seen it a mile away and not have to go anywhere near it?

LIB: Making a sudden turn is going to bounce us around, especially when you consider there's no road to turn off onto. It will make our ride more difficult and less enjoyable, whereas my answer allows us to continue on our way and not get stuck in the swamp.

SCI: But as things get muckier the car will get dirtier, which will reduce how much you enjoy the ride.

LIB: Yes, but I can get the car washed after the drive. It will just take some time.

SCI: I guess we disagree on how to deal with the problem, but hey, as long as we don't end up in the swamp.

Anyway, the point is that we'ren't suddenly going to find ourselves under ten feet of water, like the lake example suggests. I'm not going to say we can support a limitless population or that we can continue to grow forever. What I will say is that population does not grow exponentially as Malthus predicted. It grows exponentially until it is hindered by outside factors. Outside factors means life getting more expensive. Basically, as it gets more expensive to live on your own, as the price raise associated with lack of supply and additional demand of resources will cause, you will be less likely to try to support yourself and one other person. The scientific community isn't the only group that sees problems as we keep growing. We feel it all the time as the cost of basic resources go up. However, their solution of making a sharp turn onto a rocky road just to avoid the swamp way up in the future is a poor solution. All we need to do is make sure we take note of how mucky the ground is getting and it will be in our best interest to adjust our course to make sure it doesn't get muckier.

First of all, hilarious.

Second of all, a misrepresentation of what some of us (some of us who are saying overpopulation won't happen are just idiots) are trying to say.

The problem with this example is that the lake comes suddenly with no effects upon the car or the driver until we actually reach it. The pier is a nice touch to explain us overextending ourselves, but it still isn't quite true. As I pointed out before, we feel the effects of overpopulation long before they reach critical levels. I would think most of would agree we'ren't at a critical level right now, but the price of gas is going up as we use more and more and farmers are starting to be able to produce less using intensive farming techniques.

The analogy I would give which represents the two sides more accurately is that there's a swamp ahead, and that both of them see it but only the scientist starts to worry. The libertarian (and I don't like being considered a libertarian, which is why I'm content to still have him be an idiot) sees the swamp but comes to an interesting conclusion:

LIB: My goal is to have as smooth a ride as possible and probably, given my idiotic nature, to drive as fast as possible. As I get closer and closer to this swamp, the ground will get muckier and muckier, which will reduce how much I enjoy my drive and how fast I should drive. Thus, I should not get too close to the swamp. I will change the course of my car as I get closer to the swamp to make sure I don't get stuck in it but so that I don't have to do anything drastic and can still enjoy my drive.

SCI: Why are you letting yourself get close though? We've seen the swamp. Why not just make a hard right now when we've seen it a mile away and not have to go anywhere near it?

LIB: Making a sudden turn is going to bounce us around, especially when you consider there's no road to turn off onto. It will make our ride more difficult and less enjoyable, whereas my answer allows us to continue on our way and not get stuck in the swamp.

SCI: But as things get muckier the car will get dirtier, which will reduce how much you enjoy the ride.

LIB: Yes, but I can get the car washed after the drive. It will just take some time.

SCI: I guess we disagree on how to deal with the problem, but hey, as long as we don't end up in the swamp.

Anyway, the point is that we'ren't suddenly going to find ourselves under ten feet of water, like the lake example suggests. I'm not going to say we can support a limitless population or that we can continue to grow forever. What I will say is that population does not grow exponentially as Malthus predicted. It grows exponentially until it is hindered by outside factors. Outside factors means life getting more expensive. Basically, as it gets more expensive to live on your own, as the price raise associated with lack of supply and additional demand of resources will cause, you will be less likely to try to support yourself and one other person. The scientific community isn't the only group that sees problems as we keep growing. We feel it all the time as the cost of basic resources go up. However, their solution of making a sharp turn onto a rocky road just to avoid the swamp way up in the future is a poor solution. All we need to do is make sure we take note of how mucky the ground is getting and it will be in our best interest to adjust our course to make sure it doesn't get muckier.


This is, indeed, a lot more reasonable than most people in this thread are being. But one point I would make is that MOST people don't prefer any "hard rights" to avoid overpopulation. Short of genocide, I can't really imagine any. Getting people to excercise family planning and use birth control would be the gradual turn to avoid the swamp that you are talking about. And considering that we are already in the mud, I think it's time to go ahead and start on the direction that will keep from drowning.

This is, indeed, a lot more reasonable than most people in this thread are being. But one point I would make is that MOST people don't prefer any "hard rights" to avoid overpopulation. Short of genocide, I can't really imagine any. Getting people to excercise family planning and use birth control would be the gradual turn to avoid the swamp that you are talking about. And considering that we are already in the mud, I think it's time to go ahead and start on the direction that will keep from drowning.

And I agree with encouraging that kind of thing. I would, however, consider China's One Child Policy a pretty sharp turn, especially when you consider some of the results it has had (the killing of first-born girls because boys are more valuable). As I've always said, educating people to cut back on the number of children they are having is a great idea, especially in those areas of the world that are underdeveloped, but issuing edicts like China, as I get the feeling some people here would like to do, is a mistake in my opinion, not only because it seems excessive, but because it probably won't work that well anyway.

I've always wondered how many of the people decrying overpopulation have ever driven across the United States.
I have. Often. And a whole lot of those vast empty places are empty for a reason. The population of Arizona, for instance, is well beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The water resources that are used to support the existing population for a year required centuries to accumulate. Elsewhere the Green Revolution is being outstripped by exponential population growth and environmental degradation is reducing the existing farmland. Earth is finite, get used to it... Your kids are going to have to!

I have. Often. And a whole lot of those vast empty places are empty for a reason. The population of Arizona, for instance, is well beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The water resources that are used to support the existing population for a year required centuries to accumulate.

and even with the general emptiness of the american great plains, the oglala aquifer is being depleted at a disturbing rate.

and even with the general emptiness of the american great plains, the oglala aquifer is being depleted at a disturbing rate.

Yep, and as the water levels go lower and lower, it will become more and more expensive for people to pump the water out making water less an less affordable until people can't afford to use as much of it and are forced to conserve.

If the enviorment will is being destroyed, prices will rise slowly over time and people will respond by making more effecient and cleaner methods of extracting minerals from the enviorment.
Which is...happening?

Except that once you destroy a material, it's gone. It takes thousands of years to rebuild lost farmland, which we've destroyed carelessly in many places. Yes, you could put every inch of ariable land to the plow, but you're still going to be slowly destroying the soil (leeching out vital minerals, which can't be replaced as simply as just putting down fertilizer), and with rising populations, we're screwed.

Manure could be quite useful for your backyard garden, if you don't mind the smell.
As far as I know, most of raw sewage doesn't remain raw sewage for ever.

Yep, the highly toxic dregs, concentrated stuff, gets shipped off to landfills.

Anyway, the point is that we'ren't suddenly going to find ourselves under ten feet of water, like the lake example suggests. I'm not going to say we can support a limitless population or that we can continue to grow forever. What I will say is that population does not grow exponentially as Malthus predicted. It grows exponentially until it is hindered by outside factors. Outside factors means life getting more expensive. Basically, as it gets more expensive to live on your own, as the price raise associated with lack of supply and additional demand of resources will cause, you will be less likely to try to support yourself and one other person. The scientific community isn't the only group that sees problems as we keep growing. We feel it all the time as the cost of basic resources go up. However, their solution of making a sharp turn onto a rocky road just to avoid the swamp way up in the future is a poor solution. All we need to do is make sure we take note of how mucky the ground is getting and it will be in our best interest to adjust our course to make sure it doesn't get muckier.
You are aware that almost no populations fit the idealized model (exponential, linear, logarithmic) of population growth? Most end up being exponential up, then exponential right back down as it overshot the environment's carrying capacity.

there is no limit to the number of crops that can be grown. well, after a really long time, we may run out of land, but that's in a long time.

Except that once you destroy a material, it's gone. It takes thousands of years to rebuild lost farmland, which we've destroyed carelessly in many places. Yes, you could put every inch of ariable land to the plow, but you're still going to be slowly destroying the soil (leeching out vital minerals, which can't be replaced as simply as just putting down fertilizer), and with rising populations, we're screwed.

And we slowly move to different and more effecient methods of food production. We won't use the three field system and we will start using tractors (or the modern equivelant). Or we will perfect tomatoes that can grow in icy conditions.

Yep, the highly toxic dregs, concentrated stuff, gets shipped off to landfills.
And then we build another damn golf course on top of them. :p

I have. Often.

That definitely helps your argument.

And a whole lot of those vast empty places are empty for a reason. The population of Arizona, for instance, is well beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The water resources that are used to support the existing population for a year required centuries to accumulate.

No dispute so far.

Elsewhere the Green Revolution is being outstripped by exponential population growth

I dispute this--Starvation is not caused because there are too many people and not enough food, starvation is caused because the food available can't reach some people for mainly political reasons. Remember, no one is arguing that there will ever be a world without starvation; just that there always be enough food to go around. The problem is and will not be quantity, but distribution.

and environmental degradation is reducing the existing farmland.

I dispute this.

Earth is finite, get used to it...

Maybe, but the world's population will never starve because there's not enough food to go around.


Your kids are going to have to!

They'll be fine, thanks. :)

just that there always be enough food to go around. The problem is and will not be quantity, but distribution.


Maybe, but the world's population will never starve because there's not enough food to go around.

I'm just curious, what exactly is your evidence for this. I mean, that is a pretty gigantic claim that contradicts everything we know about, well, everything. You seem to be suggesting that there is an infinity of resources for us to survive on, but I can't really see what basis you could have for saying something like this.

And if you doubt that the amount of arable land is declining, I recommend you look up the term desertification.

Your comment to the degradation of farmland:
I dispute this.
Not true. In Africa, especially, erosion is a serious problem.
In order to get whatever they can out of the poor soil they have, a lot of plowing is done. When it gets dry, the loose earth is often blown away, thus making the problem worse. The fact that the people chop the few trees in the area to get additional food only serves to increase the desertification of the area, since the plants that kept moisture in the ground no longer do so. That leads to more dry earth being blown away.
Goats are a big problem too. They tend to survive better than cattle, because they eat just about everything. The reason this is bad is because they rip the plants out by the roots, loosening the soil and removing a factor that inhibited evaporation of moisture.
Desertification is a real problem.

And if you doubt that the amount of arable land is declining, I recommend you look up the term desertification.
"Slash and burn"

And we slowly move to different and more effecient methods of food production. We won't use the three field system and we will start using tractors (or the modern equivelant). Or we will perfect tomatoes that can grow in icy conditions.

There is a limit to what you can do with a wasteland. Even if you manage to keep crop yields constant, which would be a feat and a half, you'd still have another 10 billion mouths to feed.

Yeah. There's a limit.
"There are 51 billion hectares on the earth's surface, but only 1.3 billion hectares are available as arable land 3.3 billion hectares available as pasture land." http://www.overpopulation.org/archivesJan-Apr2000.html

There is a limit to what you can do with a wasteland. Even if you manage to keep crop yields constant, which would be a feat and a half, you'd still have another 10 billion mouths to feed.

That's absolutely true.

Just as Thomas Maltus' statement that the Earth could only produce enough food to support 1.2 billion people was true when he wrote it 1803.

That's absolutely true.

Just as Thomas Maltus' statement that the Earth could only produce enough food to support 1.2 billion people was true when he wrote it 1803.
His numbers were wrong. Or they could be right, and the only way we're able to sustain ourselves above our carrying capacity is through destructive methods of food production. I don't care to find out.

Desertification is a real problem.


But not to the extent that there is or has been a global food shortage of food. Right? Neither has it prevented the world's food production from outpacing it's population growth.

His numbers were wrong. Or they could be right, and the only way we're able to sustain ourselves above our carrying capacity is through destructive methods of food production. I don't care to find out.

As has already been explained in the opening post, his numbers were right at the time he made his calculation. He failed to take into consideration human ingenuity and technological advances, just like you're doing.

As has already been explained in the opening post, his numbers were right at the time he made his calculation. He failed to take into consideration human ingenuity and technological advances, just like you're doing.
And you're putting too much faith in unproven technology. Sooner or later, a wall will emerge, and if we're going 50 miles per hour into it, there won't be much left.

Law of deminishing gains.

That's absolutely true.

Just as Thomas Maltus' statement that the Earth could only produce enough food to support 1.2 billion people was true when he wrote it 1803.
Yeah, but Africa isn't exactly the place that has managed to increase it's crop output.

Yeah. There's a limit.
"There are 51 billion hectares on the earth's surface, but only 1.3 billion hectares are available as arable land 3.3 billion hectares available as pasture land." http://www.overpopulation.org/archivesJan-Apr2000.html

These calculations, like all other calculations of world food production capacity, are based on assumptions that always have and always will be proven wrong. "we can only produce X amount of food"--but we always produce more and there's never been a global shortage.

I recommend that you read "the population bomb", circa 1968--we were suppose to run out of food by the late 80s. Of course, the book has been updated, so now we're suppose to have enough food to last us through only the next 20 years, but the point is that we're running out and our resources and technology are already pushed to the brink! Right?

But the fact that one person made calculations that turned out to be incorrect does not prove that there is no limit to the carrying capacity of earth, or to the fact that technological innovation will always outpace population growth. It's true that it is impossible to calculate the exact carrying capacity of earth, but it is absurd to think that our inability to calculate that number means that it is infinite.

And you're putting too much faith in unproven technology. Sooner or later, a wall will emerge, and if we're going 50 miles per hour into it, there won't be much left.

Law of deminishing gains.


I think you mean the law of diminishing returns... which is something totally different and unrelated anyway :)

I think that you, like everyone who worried before you, is putting too little faith in unproven technology. :) History is on my side on this one... where's YOUR evidence? :)

Oh, and there is an absolute wall, one that you can't get around. The calorie value of sunlight that hits the earth. May sound like something silly, but it does exist, and I'd have to rerun the calculations to tell you the hard numbers, but...

I think you mean the law of diminishing returns... which is something totally different and unrelated anyway :)

I think that you, like everyone who worried before you, is putting too little faith in unproven technology. :) History is on my side on this one... where's YOUR evidence? :)
"No lakes"

But not to the extent that there is or has been a global food shortage of food. Right? Neither has it prevented the world's food production from outpacing it's population growth.I'm very tempted to call you "kid", even though I know you're older than me. That is an idealistic approach to it. There are places in this world incapable of sustaining themselves and these places are incapable of paying for what it would take to buy that sustenance from somewhere else.

Oh, and there is an absolute wall, one that you can't get around. The calorie value of sunlight that hits the earth. May sound like something silly, but it does exist, and I'd have to rerun the calculations to tell you the hard numbers, but...

It sounds interesting to learn about. Feel free to elaborate.

These calculations, like all other calculations of world food production capacity, are based on assumptions that always have and always will be proven wrong. "we can only produce X amount of food"--but we always produce more and there's never been a global shortage.

I recommend that you read "the population bomb", circa 1968--we were suppose to run out of food by the late 80s. Of course, the book has been updated, so now we're suppose to have enough food to last us through only the next 20 years, but the point is that we're running out and our resources and technology are already pushed to the brink! Right?

Yes. That's the point. The larger point is that if you are right, TERRIFIC. Good job everybody. But if you're wrong, then we're fucked on a grand scale. If we're not worried about this and find solutions to it, then the solutions won't just appear just because they always have. Human ingenuity has always pulled us through. But that doesn't mean it's a given.

one solution to overpopulation:

:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:

it has been proven that 6.5 billion people could all fit in wyoming wiht 20 square feet each, so the size of earth is not an issue

I think you mean the law of diminishing returns... which is something totally different and unrelated anyway :)

I think that you, like everyone who worried before you, is putting too little faith in unproven technology. :) History is on my side on this one... where's YOUR evidence? :)Here's a link about desertification (http://www.unccd.int/regional/menu.php). Click on the continent (Africa is most affected) and choose any country.

I think you mean the law of diminishing returns... which is something totally different and unrelated anyway :)

I think that you, like everyone who worried before you, is putting too little faith in unproven technology. :) History is on my side on this one... where's YOUR evidence? :)
Your evidence seems to be that it hasn't happened so far, therefore it will never happen. That really is no evidence at all. History only tells us that a specific calculation is untrustworthy because not every variable can be taken into account. We don't know what the increase in productive capacity will be. I'm sure there will be some increase in capacity, but no matter what measures we take, some increase in capacity is necessary. If our increased capacity turns out to double every forty years for the next two centuries, and we manage to slow our population growth, the result will be great prosperity. If our productive capacity doesn't outstrip our population growth, the result will be famine and mass starvation. Why is it worth it to take that risk when some very reasonable steps could be taken right now? I mean, my house has never been on fire, but I still buy fire insurance.

You are aware that almost no populations fit the idealized model (exponential, linear, logarithmic) of population growth? Most end up being exponential up, then exponential right back down as it overshot the environment's carrying capacity.
Proof?

Most populations that I've seen shoot up exponentially, slightly overshoot their carrying capacity, then work their way back down to slightly below carrying capacity, then level out at about carrying capacity.

Let's take deer. The deer population grows exponentially at first. At some point, the deer start to run out of grass. The deer have exceeded natural carrying capacity. Some deer starve. Because the grass was so depleted, more deer starve than is necessary because the deer have slightly damaged the ecosystem by eating too much grass. In time, the ecosystem, no longer weighed down by excess deer, will replenish itself and the deer will begin to multiply. They will probably go over the carrying capacity again, but this time they will exceed it less than last time, and when the inevitable dip comes, less will starve than last time, till eventually they just sit happily at capacity. Of course, this system assumes a lot of things like no predators or natural disaster, but the basic system makes sense.

Wait a minute, you say, if this scenario can be applied to humans, doesn't this mean that humans will starve? Isn't this worth avoiding? However, humans are not stupid, or at least not as stupid as deer. They do not mindlessly procreate. That is to say, they have a method to their madness. When they start to exceed carrying capacity and less food is around, they will have less kids, unlike deer who stupidly procreate anyway and have more...uh...baby deer (what the heck are they called?) until some of them start starving. This means we don't have to worry about the whole starvation thing.

I'm very tempted to call you "kid", even though I know you're older than me. That is an idealistic approach to it. There are places in this world incapable of sustaining themselves and these places are incapable of paying for what it would take to buy that sustenance from somewhere else.

I agree that it would be idealistic if I was arguing that the world could ever solve starvation. But I'm not. Right now, the world produces more food than its people can consume. People are starving nonetheless because people suck.

People suck. Does anyone dispute THAT? :) If freaking warlords and dictators weren't manipulating the political situation to use food as leverage for maintaining their stranglehold on power over their crappy realms; if corrupt governments weren't advocating unrestrained slash-and-burn foresting; if organizations like the United Nations didn't illegally skim money off things like their oil-for-food program--there would be more than enough food for everyone. People wouldn't have to worry about where their next meal would come from and they could concentrate on meeting their other needs: housing, clothing, education, relationships, etc.

But people suck, and they always will suck. And we need to recognize that those are the problem, not that people are having too many children, that is the danger to our future, because you have to know what the problems are before you can fix them. It doesn't matter how many people there are on this planet; there's always going to be starvation as long as the wrong people are controlling how the food is being distributed.

one solution to overpopulation:

:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:

it has been proven that 6.5 billion people could all fit in wyoming wiht 20 square feet each, so the size of earth is not an issue

There are only 121 billion square feet in wyoming?

Proof?

Wait a minute, you say, if this scenario can be applied to humans, doesn't this mean that humans will starve? Isn't this worth avoiding? However, humans are not stupid, or at least not as stupid as deer. They do not mindlessly procreate. That is to say, they have a method to their madness. When they start to exceed carrying capacity and less food is around, they will have less kids, unlike deer who stupidly procreate anyway and have more...uh...baby deer (what the heck are they called?) until some of them start starving. This means we don't have to worry about the whole starvation thing.
I don't really think this is true. The nations with the biggest food shortages also have the highest birth rates in the world. Not to mention, when we "start to exceed carrying capacity", that means the famines and starvation have already started, so that's a little too late.

And anyway, why can't we use this intelligence to plan ahead, and have fewer children now so that we won't have to hit that panic button in whatever year it is we overreach capacity? I can't imagine anything more counterproductive to this end than saying "technology will probably save us, nothing to worry about."

I agree that it would be idealistic if I was arguing that the world could ever solve starvation. But I'm not. Right now, the world produces more food than its people can consume. People are starving nonetheless because people suck.

People suck. Does anyone dispute THAT? :) If freaking warlords and dictators weren't manipulating the political situation to use food as leverage for maintaining their stranglehold on power over their crappy realms; if corrupt governments weren't advocating unrestrained slash-and-burn foresting; if organizations like the United Nations didn't illegally skim money off things like their oil-for-food program--there would be more than enough food for everyone. People wouldn't have to worry about where their next meal would come from and they could concentrate on meeting their other needs: housing, clothing, education, relationships, etc.

But people suck, and they always will suck. And we need to recognize that those are the problem, not that people are having too many children, that is the danger to our future, because you have to know what the problems are before you can fix them. It doesn't matter how many people there are on this planet; there's always going to be starvation as long as the wrong people are controlling how the food is being distributed.The Nigerans aren't starving because the government has been diverting the food shipments from somewhere else. The Nigerans are starving because there's been an abysmal harvest and no food came when those that predicted there would be a famine spoke up. Not every African country is ruled by warlords and not every corrupt leader is involved with the food business. The UN does a lot to combat famine and some corruption in the Oil For Food program in Iraq doesn't mean they do it everywhere. There's completely different groups involved in that.
You fail to mention the Western countries that buy the extra food from their farmers and burn it to maintain the prices. That is the bigger part of the problem.

It sounds interesting to learn about. Feel free to elaborate.
4.6 billion hectares of arable land= 4.6 × 10^13 m^2
200 cals per min per square meter of land
Primary conversion from light to plant= 1%, or two calories per minute per square meter of land, or (60 minutes times 12 hours) 1440 calories per day or 525 Calories (kcals) per year.

525 kcals per square meter times 4.6 x 10^13= 2.41500 × 10^16 kcals for the primary level. Times .1 for us (trophic efficiency)=2.41500 × 10^15 kcals of usable energy. Divided by 2,000 gives us: 1,207,500,000,000. A hair over a trillion.


Very very very rough maximums. You couldn't get anything near this close to it. As has been said earlier, 3/4ths of the above land is only suited for pasture land, which is a whole different ball game. At best, 300 billion. And that's assuming that you have 100% crop density over all arable land, with no wastage. You'd be lucky to get half of that. Say a hard maximum of about 200-100 billion.

Don't hold me to any of these numbers, the source that I used last time has flown off of my bookshelf and I had to do the rest by hand calculations. Last source I had gave me the absolute value of the number of calories that hit the earths surface...

I'll try looking for better. These numbers seem way to high.

when we "start to exceed carrying capacity", that means the famines and starvation have already started, so that's a little too late.

Not exactly, we've started to exceed carrying capacity when the cost of living goes up because we're running short on resources. That doesn't necessarily mean famine or disease. Basically, we get earlier warning than you give us credit for.

And anyway, why can't we use this intelligence to plan ahead, and have fewer children now so that we won't have to hit that panic button in whatever year it is we overreach capacity? I can't imagine anything more counterproductive to this end than saying "technology will probably save us, nothing to worry about."

We're actually already doing this. Many developed countries, Canada included, would actually be shrinking were it not for immigration. The UN says that while the population is still growing, this growth is decelerating, and for those of you that take physics or calculus, you know this means that eventually we're going to start shrinking down on our own. A lot of people worried about overpopulation seem to think we're doing nothing. This simply isn't true. We're planning whether or not we are going to have families in the developed nations of the world, and if we can extend this process to underdeveloped nations, pretty soon they will be cutting their populations as well. I'm not saying that we'll keep growing and that technology will grow with us. I'm saying that as technology stops growing we'll stop growing too.

Proof?

Most populations that I've seen shoot up exponentially, slightly overshoot their carrying capacity, then work their way back down to slightly below carrying capacity, then level out at about carrying capacity.

Let's take deer. The deer population grows exponentially at first. At some point, the deer start to run out of grass. The deer have exceeded natural carrying capacity. Some deer starve. Because the grass was so depleted, more deer starve than is necessary because the deer have slightly damaged the ecosystem by eating too much grass. In time, the ecosystem, no longer weighed down by excess deer, will replenish itself and the deer will begin to multiply. They will probably go over the carrying capacity again, but this time they will exceed it less than last time, and when the inevitable dip comes, less will starve than last time, till eventually they just sit happily at capacity. Of course, this system assumes a lot of things like no predators or natural disaster, but the basic system makes sense.

Wait a minute, you say, if this scenario can be applied to humans, doesn't this mean that humans will starve? Isn't this worth avoiding? However, humans are not stupid, or at least not as stupid as deer. They do not mindlessly procreate. That is to say, they have a method to their madness. When they start to exceed carrying capacity and less food is around, they will have less kids, unlike deer who stupidly procreate anyway and have more...uh...baby deer (what the heck are they called?) until some of them start starving. This means we don't have to worry about the whole starvation thing.
They spike up, spike down, and stabalize around the carrying capacity. However, procreation isn't the only way to overshoot a carrying capacity, as I've said before, as a carrying capacity is merely the amount of animals that an area can house without harming the ecosystem. You can go above it, but you're destroying the foundations, so to speak.

one solution to overpopulation:

:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:
:( :mp5: :sniper:
:( :mp5:

it has been proven that 6.5 billion people could all fit in wyoming wiht 20 square feet each, so the size of earth is not an issue

Just for kicks, I did some calculations on this. The results are interesting.

First, if you've never been, Wyoming sucks. There's so much nothingness, it's unbelieveable.

Next, if the entire world population moved to Wyoming, There would be an average of 420 square feet available per person. Take into account that there would be multiple people per family, apartments stacked upon one another, minus roads and public spaces... What would this look like? Well, New York City, including all five borroughs (bronx, manhattan, brooklyn, queens, and staten island), has approximately 10,300 people per square kilometer. Wyoming would have 25,615 people per square kilometer--so the population density would be approximately 2.5 times more dense than New York City. The entire state of Wyoming would look like this, but of course there wouldn't be people anywhere else in the entire world--which means that every city outside wyoming would be deserted and et cetera.

Anyway, I don't think that this proves anything. I just thought that it was interesting.

Fallacy? I thought the conservation of matter and energy is a central tenet of most scientific theories outside of Quantum Mechanics? Isn't that "no limit"?

Actually, the OP is one big no-limits and yours ignores the rest of the laws of thermodynamics (ie. You will have to put more energy into a system than useful energy you will recover. It's why oil and other fossil fuels are so god damned cool, the energy was already put into them millions of years ago).

The only way a serious overpopulation problem can occur is if a major shift in a very short period of time. Like, say, a nuclear war, or the sun exploding.

Overpopulation will occur when the combined total of all the world's people's ecological footprints exceed the area of the Earth. Consider: The average person uses so much power that needs to be generated in the form of electronics, eats so much food that needs to be grown on farms, etc. This all takes up space. People need a whole hell of a lot more than just a 15 x 15 square room to sleep in.


Is this flaming? At the very least, I think "dumber" is better than "stupider."

Yes, it is flaming. When I see someone being stupid I call them on it.


Plenty of books had some base to their claims. Like the 1968 classic "The Population Bomb."
Written by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#Writings

Having not read the book, I cannot comment.
However, saying that just because something has been predicted for years (hundreds, possibly, thousands? Hell no) doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. It's like saying the world isn't going to end just because so many people have said so.

You fail to mention the Western countries that buy the extra food from their farmers and burn it to maintain the prices. That is the bigger part of the problem.

That's a fantastic point! I haven't thought about that in ages.

Not exactly, we've started to exceed carrying capacity when the cost of living goes up because we're running short on resources. That doesn't necessarily mean famine or disease. Basically, we get earlier warning than you give us credit for.



We're actually already doing this. Many developed countries, Canada included, would actually be shrinking were it not for immigration. The UN says that while the population is still growing, this growth is decelerating, and for those of you that take physics or calculus, you know this means that eventually we're going to start shrinking down on our own. A lot of people worried about overpopulation seem to think we're doing nothing. This simply isn't true. We're planning whether or not we are going to have families in the developed nations of the world, and if we can extend this process to underdeveloped nations, pretty soon they will be cutting their populations as well. I'm not saying that we'll keep growing and that technology will grow with us. I'm saying that as technology stops growing we'll stop growing too.
Well, then you and I basically agree. I'm not proposing radical measures here, and I know that some measures are being taken. I think it is in everyone's best interest, for example, to promote education and availability of birth control in the third world. It has done wonders in the first world and is at least partially, if not primarily, responsible for our declining birth rate. There is some political opposition, much of which comes from the catholic church and relgious conservatives.

I basically agree that we can solve the problem of overpopulation, but it is something that we need to be concerned about. Claiming that overpopulation is impossible, as this thread and a couple of people posting in it are doing, is not only without basis in fact but completely irresponsible.

And if you doubt that the amount of arable land is declining, I recommend you look up the term desertification.
Wouldn't that count as REGIONAL overpopulation, not global?

There is a limit to what you can do with a wasteland. Even if you manage to keep crop yields constant, which would be a feat and a half, you'd still have another 10 billion mouths to feed.

There is a limit to what we can do anything with present technology, isn't there? But our technological capacity is always expanding. There is no reason to assume that it will not continue to do so, or that the market won't be able to respond to anything but a natural disaster or stupid government policies.

Wouldn't that count as REGIONAL overpopulation, not global?




But it does decrease the amount of arable land, which is a finite resource that is necessary for life. And it results from overfarming.

But it does decrease the amount of arable land, which is a finite resource that is necessary for life. And it results from overfarming.
But who is to say that we will need an infinte amount of land to support an infinte amount of people? Infinite productivity would do the exact same thing.

4.6 billion hectares of arable land= 4.6 × 10^13 m^2
200 cals per min per square meter of land
Primary conversion from light to plant= 1%, or two calories per minute per square meter of land, or (60 minutes times 12 hours) 1440 calories per day or 525 Calories (kcals) per year.

525 kcals per square meter times 4.6 x 10^13= 2.41500 × 10^16 kcals for the primary level. Times .1 for us (trophic efficiency)=2.41500 × 10^15 kcals of usable energy. Divided by 2,000 gives us: 1,207,500,000,000. A hair over a trillion.


Very very very rough maximums. You couldn't get anything near this close to it. As has been said earlier, 3/4ths of the above land is only suited for pasture land, which is a whole different ball game. At best, 300 billion. And that's assuming that you have 100% crop density over all arable land, with no wastage. You'd be lucky to get half of that. Say a hard maximum of about 200-100 billion.

Don't hold me to any of these numbers, the source that I used last time has flown off of my bookshelf and I had to do the rest by hand calculations. Last source I had gave me the absolute value of the number of calories that hit the earths surface...

I'll try looking for better. These numbers seem way to high.

Do these calculations include the amount that goes into heating the air, ground, etc? In addition, this also assumes that it all goes into the edible parts of crops, which is generally less than half of the total plant. In the cases of grains, which are human's primary food source, it would be a lot less than half.

But who is to say that we will need an infinte amount of land to support an infinte amount of people? Infinite productivity would do the exact same thing.
So what makes you think we will have infinite productivity with finite resources? That is a pretty bizarre concept that is, frankly, pretty absurd.

So what makes you think we will have infinite productivity with finite resources? That is a pretty bizarre concept that is, frankly, pretty absurd.
Productivity is pretty much the rate resources can be harnessed to create something useful...

I simply can't envision a scenario where the market would fail to increase food production in accordance with demand unless:
1. Governments restrict the market
2. Natural disaster disproprtionatley hits current food producing areas
3. Atoms start flying away from the planet, which represents a REAL reduction in resources

Do these calculations include the amount that goes into heating the air, ground, etc? In addition, this also assumes that it all goes into the edible parts of crops, which is generally less than half of the total plant. In the cases of grains, which are human's primary food source, it would be a lot less than half.
That's assuming that everything that hits arable land gets converted. It's wrong, I can feel it, but I can't tell you why, I think some of my numbers are off, I'm using a bad source for this.

Can everyone shutup about the food for a minute to get to another MAJOR topic.

As people increase so do our food needs, the result means more people and more food.

Now what is a by-product of this? Carbon dioxide from humans and waste.

As the population increases expontentially so will our needs to quell C2 and our byproducts. Now this is where is gets grim. As more C2 and other by-products from humans living, each human MAY be able to live ina small area, but the yearly needs are great. Food and water and medical care, housing and everything. Faced with our own rapid growth we will need to do something about it or forced to do something drastic, the world cannot support 1 trillion people, not in a million years.

As population increases and so does technology, so do our material needs and demands. To continue living a good life we must extract materials from the Earth and use them to create things and release more wastes. At a point it will become too great and we will die off as our own wastes have led to our demise by pushing natural systems too far.

Solution is too look to space, not Earth. Earth is the cradle, it is time to walk into the universe and grow.

But who is to say that we will need an infinte amount of land to support an infinte amount of people?

thermodynamics

Once more:

Solar constant is 1.98ish calories/min/cm
200,000 cals/min/m times 4.6 × 10^13 square meters
9.2 × 10^18 cals/min/earths*60*12*365= 2.41776 × 10^24 cals/year/arable land

2.41776*10^24/1000=(2.41776*10^21)*.1*.01=2.41776*10^18 usable calories per year.


Human consumption=2500*365=912,500

2 649 600 000 000. Still seems high.

Well, then you and I basically agree. I'm not proposing radical measures here, and I know that some measures are being taken. I think it is in everyone's best interest, for example, to promote education and availability of birth control in the third world. It has done wonders in the first world and is at least partially, if not primarily, responsible for our declining birth rate. There is some political opposition, much of which comes from the catholic church and relgious conservatives.

I basically agree that we can solve the problem of overpopulation, but it is something that we need to be concerned about. Claiming that overpopulation is impossible, as this thread and a couple of people posting in it are doing, is not only without basis in fact but completely irresponsible.

Then this is the second time we've agreed, which is good. Now if only the rest of the thread would stop blindly restating the same thing until their heads explode we might actually get somewhere.