Arguing overpopulation?

[Keyeotee]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

 

[Robyn_p]

Check out overpopulation is a myth.com

They have tons of info that answers this question and others, its really good.

 

[jeannetherese]

You might also wish to discuss resource distribution. But you might especially be interested in looking at the two green revolutions, each of which has made a significant difference in production levels.

 

[Steve80]

You can always diverge into sexual prudence since abortion is usually preceded by the sin of sensuality. Of course this is usually met with even more resistance than abortion, but it makes a case for the ripple effect of sinning and why one should confront it at the source.

 

[1ke]

Resources are not finite, they are renewable.

Innovation brings new technology and efficiency. Thirty years ago peopl were convinced we would run out of copper due to its use in telecommunications. Enter fiber optics-- we aren’t running out of SAND any time soon, and copper is not in danger of depleting.

 

[cerad2]

Resources are not finite, they are renewable.

Innovation brings new technology and efficiency. Thirty years ago peopl were convinced we would run out of copper due to its use in telecommunications. Enter fiber optics-- we aren’t running out of SAND any time soon, and copper is not in danger of depleting.

So how exactly does one “renew” copper?

Demand for copper far exceeds the amount which is mined. Recycling is expensive and falls short as well. Hence the ever increasing number of copper thefts.

Just google: “copper shortages”

 

[ValPal]

Resources are not finite, they are renewable.

It’s true they are not finite; they actually decrease. Renewing resources always results in a loss, and sometimes a major loss. That’s a basic, accepted, and undisputed physical principle.

Innovation brings new technology and efficiency. Thirty years ago peopl were convinced we would run out of copper due to its use in telecommunications. Enter fiber optics-- we aren’t running out of SAND any time soon, and copper is not in danger of depleting.

Efficiency must always be less than 100%, meaning there is always a loss.

 

[ValPal]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

IMHO, arguments for overpopulation are fruitless. The main problem is that those that ignore the population issues simply don’t understand the issues related to it. For example, the “Texas can hold us all” argument simply demonstrates that a person has no understanding of a biological system…you can’t convince such a person of anything, without starting from the very beginning and teaching them some common sense.

The major factor that is coming into play is resources. When resources decrease, the population that depends on it decreases accordingly if necessary for survival, and stabilization of the population relative to the resources will occur. This has always occurred, still occurs (still a few isolated populations around to prove that), and will always continue to occur. When the resources in an environment run out, there is typically a dying off of part of the population, either naturally and/or by conflict, or part of the population moves to another resource-rich environment.

 

[1ke]

So how exactly does one “renew” copper?

Hello, fiber optics. Better, faster, and reduced the demand for copper.

One can recycle copper, BTW.

Demand for copper far exceeds the amount which is mined. Recycling is expensive and falls short as well. Hence the ever increasing number of copper thefts.

Just google: “copper shortages”

Which are structural, not actual.

 

[TEPO]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

Well the one good thing about overpopulation is that we can never run out of meat… Vegetables and grains yes, but not meat.

 

[TEPO]

Resources are not finite, they are renewable.

Innovation brings new technology and efficiency. Thirty years ago peopl were convinced we would run out of copper due to its use in telecommunications. Enter fiber optics-- we aren’t running out of SAND any time soon, and copper is not in danger of depleting.

All powerlines used to be made of copper, now we replace them with aluminum and we’ve recycled the copper. Funny how time goes on we find new solutions to all our ‘problems’.

 

[ValPal]

Well the one good thing about overpopulation is that we can never run out of meat… Vegetables and grains yes, but not meat.

Meat is actually a resource intensive way of gaining calories. That’s exactly why you see much lower meat intake in countries around the world with lower resource/population ratios.

 

[TEPO]

Meat is actually a resource intensive way of gaining calories. That’s exactly why you see much lower meat intake in countries around the world with lower resource/population ratios.

That doesn’t change the fact that increased populations mean increased meat… Know what I mean?

 

[ahs]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

Read “Sex Au Naturel” by Patrick Coffin. He goes into this topic in great depth…soundly addressing this myth of overpopulation. One part, which I checked his math on to make sure…and I think he was actualy very conservative, was where he fit the entire world population into Texas. The scenario was that the entire population of the world (7 billion) could fit into the state of Texas (subtracting out water bodies, etc…) and each person will have 0.2 acres to themselves.

0.2 acres is not bad…average size lot in a small neighborhood. But here is where I think this is conservative. This is for every person. That means, a family of a husband, wife, and 2 children, will have 4 hypotheitcal houses on 4 hypothetical lots of 0.2 acres each. I think a more realistic hypothetical average would be to figure for families of 3…yeilding 0.6 acres per family…all in the state of Texas, leaving the entire remainder of the world unpopulated.

But anyway, if you want to get a more true idea of population density…take a flight across the country and look out the window. How many densly populated areas do you see in comparison to open farmland and undeveloped forest/prairie/swamp/mountain, etc…? The world is no where near being over populated…and we don’t need non-renewable energy sources to survive. People lived just fine before gasolne engines and air conditioning (use of copper). Yes, a tougher lifestyle to be sure…but survivable and planty confortable for those who lived in it. I don’t recall any historical documents where people who never had a/c complained about how tough life is without a/c.

 

[ValPal]

That doesn’t change the fact that increased populations mean increased meat… Know what I mean?

While I assume you say this in jest, practically speaking eating such meat and organs will help reduce population rapidly, since it makes the spread of disease very easy. It also can result in the occurence of extremely rare and deadly diseases, such as kuru.

 

[tafan]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

The problem is you have accepted the false economic argument that “The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.” implies there are any resources that are reaching a breaking point. The truth is, there are none.

Food: we can afford to take 40% of our corn crop an turn it into useless fuel in this country. There is lots of land that is sitting unused, paid to be idle by the CRP program.

Energy: cheap oil is running out. There will be no more $30/barrel oil. But there is a LOT of expensive oil (oil in the $80-100 price range easily makes it profitable to develop) So we start to develope that. Natural Gas: there is LOTS of cheap natural gas. Same with coal. Not even close to running out of any of these

Now, a given resource can develope shortages, but as the price increases, we just quit using it and find a repacement (which is happening with energy right now, BTW). And then the resource that was getting to be hard to come by, actually never runs out. Two examples in history of critical resources: whale oil, we were highly dependent on it for a lot of stuff. As it became expensive, we found petroleum alternatives.

A better example is actually charcoal. In the early industrial revolution, all of the iron plants were powered by charcoal. Large parts of England were deforested in order to product the charcoal and people thought the new economy was unsustainable because of a lack of trees. Well, coal ended up working better. And the trees came back.

You can find no resource, not one, that shows any signs of reaching a critical shortage that will drastically affect the world’s population in a negative way. It is a load of ****.

 

[edwest2]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

Research does not start with the word “never.” And where does killing come into the picture? In China, they have a one child policy.

Right now, in the United States, the largest demographic in US history is starting to die - the so-called stupid word Baby Boomers.

Here are population trends:

prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

You’ll note that the least developed, poorest countries will experience the greatest birth rates. Where the odds of a child surviving past the age of five are very low.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

The most basic way of addressing “overpopulation” assertions is to point out that the issue is long moot. Demographers have LONG recognized the trajectory that modern science and civilization causes in fertility trends. There are three stages:

1. Population boom due to better nutrition, hygiene and medicine when modern industrial conditions are adopted.
2. Transition period as the generations born in predevelopment conditions grow up and have fewer babies than their parents and again reduction in the next generation.
3. Stabilization at around replacement rate of fertility (2.1 kids per woman) - TFR.

This has been the pattern demographers have seen even BEFORE the advent of the pill and modern condoms. What has changed since contraception is that stage #3 results in a stabilized TFR of 1.2 to 1.8, which is well BELOW replacement rate. Every single nation on earth that is in stage 3 is below 2.1 TFR and most other nations are rapidly moving through stage 2 towards a TFR below replacement.

In short, overpopulation is a temporary condition based on the momentum of the remaining third world nations. If current trends continue within a couple generations, Earth will experience rapid population DECLINE the like of which has never been seen before on a global basis.

You don’t hear about this and UN projections don’t recognize it because all their math is based on the absurd assumption that TFR will magically rebound to 2.1 by itself in the next generation or three. No notice was apparently paid to the fact that it really HASN’T rebounded like that for any sustained amount of time in any stage 3 nation. Demographers aren’t philosophers, and that’s too bad. Maybe then they’d see that their assumption is built on thin ice with nothing underneath it.

 

[edwest2]

The most basic way of addressing “overpopulation” assertions is to point out that the issue is long moot. Demographers have LONG recognized the trajectory that modern science and civilization causes in fertility trends. There are three stages:

1. Population boom due to better nutrition, hygiene and medicine when modern industrial conditions are adopted.
2. Transition period as the generations born in predevelopment conditions grow up and have fewer babies than their parents and again reduction in the next generation.
3. Stabilization at around replacement rate of fertility (2.1 kids per woman) - TFR.

This has been the pattern demographers have seen even BEFORE the advent of the pill and modern condoms. What has changed since contraception is that stage #3 results in a stabilized TFR of 1.2 to 1.8, which is well BELOW replacement rate. Every single nation on earth that is in stage 3 is below 2.1 TFR and most other nations are rapidly moving through stage 2 towards a TFR below replacement.

In short, overpopulation is a temporary condition based on the momentum of the remaining third world nations. If current trends continue within a couple generations, Earth will experience rapid population DECLINE the like of which has never been seen before on a global basis.

You don’t hear about this and UN projections don’t recognize it because all their math is based on the absurd assumption that TFR will magically rebound to 2.1 by itself in the next generation or three. No notice was apparently paid to the fact that it really HASN’T rebounded like that for any sustained amount of time in any stage 3 nation. Demographers aren’t philosophers, and that’s too bad. Maybe then they’d see that their assumption is built on thin ice with nothing underneath it.

Your first point has no basis in fact. The least developed countries - the poorest, with the poorest hygiene, and the worst access to medical care, are on track to grow the world’s population.

In the meantime, various relief agencies and even Bill and Melinda Gates will hand out condoms to them. Doctors Without Borders are pitching in.

doctorswithoutborders.org/

While we are called to help the poor, the poorest will continue to have more children for the foreseeable future. And here’s some data from my favorite government agency, the CIA:

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

You should note their summary at the top, and the US rank of 123.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

Your first point has no basis in fact. The least developed countries - the poorest, with the poorest hygiene, and the worst access to medical care, are on track to grow the world’s population.

You’re either not understanding me or have blinders on. Stage 1 isn’t untouched aboriginals. What few of those are left are such a small group as to be insignificant.

Stage 1 is societies that have substantially begun the development process. Even in the poorest countries on Earth today, there are already huge steps towards clean water supply, infectious disease control, basic sanitation and the basics of medical care for pregnant women. Sure, Yemen is primitive compated to Chicago, but even there infant mortality, women dying in childbirth and mass outbreaks of infectious disease are WAY down from what they were 100 years ago. While still way behind first world status, these countries are already experiencing tectonically large improvements in youth and maternal survival rates. That’s where the stage 1 boom comes from.

I cite the CIA world factbook on this subject all the time because it starkly demonstrates my point: Every developed country (stage 3) on earth has a below replacement TFR, the second world countries have TFRs that have fallen rapidly in the past few decades (stage 2) and the number of countries still in early stage 1 is dwindling rapidly. The pending crisis is NOT overpopulation, but population implosion.