How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[wynnejj]

@wynnejj: looking at it in the light of the Second Coming makes a lot of sense; but we obviously can’t use that argument when discussing it with non-Christians.

apfal – Agreed. That is the way it is with many scientific subjects that are based on a premise that the God Factor must never be used. Reality is to science as science is to pure math. Pure math can be just a game that has no real useful application to science or the real world - more of an academic theoretical game with a potential of being useful. Science without the God Factor again is a useful tool but not necessarily a true reflection of reality if God exists and is actively setting the plan for the world.

I’ll never see overpopulation in my lifetime. There’s a banker’s rule of 72 that says if you take the interest rate and divide it into 72, generally that will be how many years it will take to double your principal with compound interest. Apply that to population growth with a growth rate of 1% (wikipedia says 1.14% for year 2000 under “world population” subject), then it will be 72 years for the poputation to double. And at every 72 years after that, it will double again in the pattern of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, … We are now at just under 7 billion, so the pattern will be 7, 14, 28, 56, 112, 224 (billion) at each succeeding 72 year mark. Barring finding a suitable planet for Jor-El to launch his baby Kal-El (to be Superman on his target new home planet), if we have to make due on planet Earth there should be a tipping point. Science would say that we should stabilize the population at whatever is sustainable to just replacement levels. The fact of the matter is that if there is no recognition of the reality of a God who will provide, then population control is necessary. As a Christian and a little Mad, I say “What? Me Worry?”.

 

[Warrior1979]

Overpopulation is measured relative to the resources in the environment. If we were a hunter gatherer society, we would be massively overpopulated. Actually, we couldn’t have the current population in that case.

The current population is only sustainable through a massive amount of nonrenewable resources. The population doesn’t have to grow for us to become overpopulated. The amount of resources relative to what we need can also diminish and have the exact same effect.

 

[wynnejj]

We could go Amish, then our world bank account of non-renewable resources would seem a massive supply, I suspect.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

apfal – Agreed. That is the way it is with many scientific subjects that are based on a premise that the God Factor must never be used. Reality is to science as science is to pure math. Pure math can be just a game that has no real useful application to science or the real world - more of an academic theoretical game with a potential of being useful. Science without the God Factor again is a useful tool but not necessarily a true reflection of reality if God exists and is actively setting the plan for the world.

I’ll never see overpopulation in my lifetime. There’s a banker’s rule of 72 that says if you take the interest rate and divide it into 72, generally that will be how many years it will take to double your principal with compound interest. Apply that to population growth with a growth rate of 1% (wikipedia says 1.14% for year 2000 under “world population” subject), then it will be 72 years for the poputation to double. And at every 72 years after that, it will double again in the pattern of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, … We are now at just under 7 billion, so the pattern will be 7, 14, 28, 56, 112, 224 (billion) at each succeeding 72 year mark. Barring finding a suitable planet for Jor-El to launch his baby Kal-El (to be Superman on his target new home planet), if we have to make due on planet Earth there should be a tipping point. Science would say that we should stabilize the population at whatever is sustainable to just replacement levels. The fact of the matter is that if there is no recognition of the reality of a God who will provide, then population control is necessary. As a Christian and a little Mad, I say “What? Me Worry?”.

Question. Does your calculation take into account the dying off of people in that poplutalion to reach those numbers? I mean if I place a dollar in the bank at 1% interest then spend $.50 I am not going to get 1% of the doolar in interest. There for if we start with 3 people 4 are born and 2 die we have 5 that is the thing also with these we never know what the death rates are really going to be. And as been shown There are already places were we are not even meeting replacemnet rates, and the numbers show that that is becomeing a issue in most places.

 

[kimmielittle]

If we were a hunter gatherer society, we would be massively overpopulated. Actually, we couldn’t have the current population in that case.

Interesting theory can you support your statement?

We are a hunter gatherer society. Our economy provides the luxury of hiring others to do our hunting and gathering - for us.

We pay the farmer to gather.
We pay the rancher to hunt.

The current population is only sustainable through a massive amount of nonrenewable resources.

Which resources are non renewable, please? Energy? Food? Please provide sources.

The best source for measuring of scarcity is commodity prices, and these have been falling, not rising, during the last century. Prices for widely consumed cereals (wheat, corn and rice) as well as of internationally traded metals have plunged between 70 and 80 percent since 1900.

 

[wynnejj]

Question. Does your calculation take into account the dying off of people in that poplutalion to reach those numbers? I mean if I place a dollar in the bank at 1% interest then spend $.50 I am not going to get 1% of the doolar in interest. There for if we start with 3 people 4 are born and 2 die we have 5 that is the thing also with these we never know what the death rates are really going to be. And as been shown There are already places were we are not even meeting replacemnet rates, and the numbers show that that is becomeing a issue in most places.

The 1% population growth represents the net growth of births and deaths and longer life spans. The world population is increasing inexorably overall - period. The illustration is only meant to show that population growth compounds & grows like interest and, doubling every set interval of years grows logarithmically, not a straight line curve. Of course, a meteor, nuclear war, famine or disease could strike our planet a blow that might near wipe us out. Then the illustration means nothing, like much of science when chaos theory or the God Factor are factored in. Overpopulation is a concern, maybe not for our lifetime, but a legitimate concern, if Divine Providence is a myth.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Short Answer: just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square. Leaving rest of the world for resources and jobs.

Here is the math:

Start with the number of people times four square feet(standing area).
Look at chart for area of each US state in square feet to see where they fit.

or

Start with a total area like the US divided by four square feet to see how many people can stand in that area.

Using current projections of world population,

By the year 2050 it is projectect that there will be 9.2 billion people on earth.

If each person stood in a 2 foot by 2 foot square, they all will fit in any US State.

Leaving 49 other states to grow food and dispose of waste.

In fact, they would only take up about a fourth of our smallest state of R.I.

Answer: 9200000000 ft² = 330.004 mi² OR 330 mi² and 128000.0 ft²

[geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)

metric-conversions.org/area/square-feet-to-square-miles.htm

Rank State Name Area (Sq Miles)
43 Vermont 9,615
44 New Hampshire 9,283
45 Massachusetts 8,262
46 New Jersey 7,790
47 Hawaii 6,459
48 Connecticut 5,006
49 Delaware 2,026
50 Rhode Island 1,213

theus50.com/area.php

Also, if a person really is concerned about being a bother to the earth they could simply end their life.

Start with total square miles for US,

United States total area: 3,794,083 square miles (including water) – (9,826,630 sq km)

enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

Find a number of square miles that will fit in the US using round numbers.

Answer: 100000000000000 ft² = 3587006.427 mi²

divide by four square feet to find out how many people can fit into that area of the US.

100,000,000,000,000 / 4 = 2.5 × 1013

just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square.

Leaving rest of the World to grow foot and get rid of waste, and have places to work.

 

[GEddie]

We could go Amish, then our world bank account of non-renewable resources would seem a massive supply, I suspect.

The human “headcount” is almost as far too large for a farming society as it is for a hunter-gathering “society”.

There is nowhere near enough arable land for the first,nowhere near enough living wilderness for the second.

A return to either pattern will mean a lot of people will die off, there is no alternative.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

(I would concede the point that overpopulation is a potential threat if the second coming of Jesus is a myth.)

Overpopulation versus Divine Providence

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=268396

As we go round and round about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, it occurs to me that the key question is fundamentally about whether or not America (and the world) trusts in God’s Divine Providence enough to enact moral laws that go against rational thought. It occurs to me that all Pro-Life arguments are illogical and irresponsible if the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice ideology which denies God’s Divine Providence is accepted as Truth.

For the love of God, please stop calling abortion ‘choice.’

Is that what our Savior would call it?

 

[Warrior1979]

Interesting theory can you support your statement?

We are a hunter gatherer society. Our economy provides the luxury of hiring others to do our hunting and gathering - for us.

We pay the farmer to gather.
We pay the rancher to hunt.

As we all well know, the farmer doesn’t plant seeds by hand, pick crops by hand, and pick off bugs hand. The work nowadays is done by machines, which are run by…guess what…fossil fuels or their derivatives. The same with pesticides. Many are petro based, and even if they are not, they are distributed by machines that use fossil fuels. Then we get to the whole distribution chain (transport, refrigeration, etc.) which is also fossil-fuel dependent.

This is exactly why food prices are very sensitive to changes in energy prices. Many of these businesses are low margin. A professional peer was discussing the problems with poultry farmers because of the recent increase prices.

Which resources are non renewable, please? Energy? Food? Please provide sources.

Fossil fuels is the one of concern because modern civilization is dependent upon it. These fuels were created over millions of years, and we are using them at a rate that vastly exceeds there rate of creation. There is nothing to replace them, barring the discovery of other easily obtainable fossil fuel resources. The “renewables” that many talk about cannot replace them for reason that anyone with a minimal understanding of thermodynamic principles would understand.

If the energy to run the system aren’t available, the system that depends on them also collapses.

The best source for measuring of scarcity is commodity prices, and these have been falling, not rising, during the last century. Prices for widely consumed cereals (wheat, corn and rice) as well as of internationally traded metals have plunged between 70 and 80 percent since 1900.

Interesting that you picked a time period where (nonrenewable) fossil fuels took the place of human labor.

 

[Warrior1979]

Interesting theory can you support your statement?

Sure…I majored in physics. I also have engineering science and computer science degrees. At a minimum, it allows me to objectively read through various studies and come to supportable and credible conclusions.

As a result, I don’t have to rely on cartoons and websites based solely one an uniformed opinion as my sources.

FWIW, if one really wants to understand these issues, they must have a basic understanding of entropy. The discussion is otherwise pointless.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sure…I majored in physics. I also have engineering science and computer science degrees. At a minimum, it allows me to objectively read through various studies and come to supportable and credible conclusions.

As a result, I don’t have to rely on cartoons and websites based solely one an uniformed opinion as my sources.

FWIW, if one really wants to understand these issues, they must have a basic understanding of entropy. The discussion is otherwise pointless.

Hmmm with all of your knowledge base, you seem to have missed the most important lessons of science and logical debate.

An “appeal to authority” - is a logical fallacy.
Science demands support / references - you provide only your subjective speculations.

Now that you’ve used the “appeal to authority”…and provided us with your ‘scientific’ background as your ‘evidence’, can we now expect you to support your theory with scientific evidence / resources - using the rules of logical debate?

You state:

The discussion is otherwise pointless.

Agreed!!!

PS: I answered this post first, in hopes that we could get more from you, than your subjective speculations.

 

[paedagogo]

I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

It is true that overpopulation (along with its pollution and exhaustion of resources), is the most problematic issue in most of the developing world today.

However, suffering in this temporal world is irrelevant, compared to an eternity in Heaven.

There is no need to be concerned in the least about the destruction of the planet.

 

[kimmielittle]

As we all well know, the farmer doesn’t plant seeds by hand, pick crops by hand, and pick off bugs hand. The work nowadays is done by machines, which are run by…guess what…fossil fuels or their derivatives. The same with pesticides. Many are petro based, and even if they are not, they are distributed by machines that use fossil fuels. Then we get to the whole distribution chain (transport, refrigeration, etc.) which is also fossil-fuel dependent.

This is exactly why food prices are very sensitive to changes in energy prices. Many of these businesses are low margin. A professional peer was discussing the problems with poultry farmers because of the recent increase prices.

You have provided the answer…with your own accountings here.

You point to the real reasons food / energy prices are ‘sensitive’ and it’s** not ‘overpopulation’,** as you try to portray as the culprit - It’s mismanagement.

Mismanagement of resources is not dependent on population - as you well know.

Fossil fuels is the one of concern because modern civilization is dependent upon it. These fuels were created over millions of years, and we are using them at a rate that vastly exceeds there rate of creation. There is nothing to replace them, barring the discovery of other easily obtainable fossil fuel resources. The “renewables” that many talk about cannot replace them for reason that anyone with a minimal understanding of thermodynamic principles would understand.

Another appeal to authority?

On Thermodynamics - ethanol is a renewable / ethanol burns / is a combustible. Combustion can be harnessed to produced energy. Alcohol, another renewable derived from any plant, organic material also is combustible. Methane - ???
disclaimer: I’m not advocating ethanol - I’m producing supporting evidence of why your bolded statement above …fails…and why an ‘appeal to authority’ …fails ].

[If the energy to run the system aren’t available, the system that depends on them also collapses.

Again, this would be mismanagement of resources…an entirely different beast. Until you can link mismanagement of resources to overpopulation - well.l.l. you have no case. A population of 2 or even 1 can / do mismanage their valuable resources. Example: Time, one of most valued of resources, is mismanaged everyday.

Interesting that you picked a time period where (nonrenewable) fossil fuels took the place of human labor.

Interesting , that you as a ‘scientist’ missed what was stated and don’t offer a defense against it That isn’t how science or debate is carried out
[/quote]

 

[kimmielittle]

As a result, I don’t have to rely on cartoons and websites based solely one an uniformed opinion as my sources.

An ad hominem attack on the source, doesn’t distill the claim made.

In short, if you can’t / won’t disprove it…

I have asked repeatably, for you to share your resources.
Please defend your statements… or counter evidence offered.

You appeal to me as a ‘scientist’ - then debate as one, please.
Subjective speculation remains an unproven theory …correct?

You see, I too, can read objectively and with a critical eye

 

[kimmielittle]

An ad hominem attack on the source, doesn’t distill the claim made.

Correction should read: An ad hominem attack on the source, doesn’t dilute the claim made.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

As we all well know, the farmer doesn’t plant seeds by hand, pick crops by hand, and pick off bugs hand. The work nowadays is done by machines, which are run by…guess what…fossil fuels or their derivatives. The same with pesticides. Many are petro based, and even if they are not, they are distributed by machines that use fossil fuels. Then we get to the whole distribution chain (transport, refrigeration, etc.) which is also fossil-fuel dependent.

This is exactly why food prices are very sensitive to changes in energy prices. Many of these businesses are low margin. A professional peer was discussing the problems with poultry farmers because of the recent increase prices.

Fossil fuels is the one of concern because modern civilization is dependent upon it. These fuels were created over millions of years, and we are using them at a rate that vastly exceeds there rate of creation. There is nothing to replace them, barring the discovery of other easily obtainable fossil fuel resources. The “renewables” that many talk about cannot replace them for reason that anyone with a minimal understanding of thermodynamic principles would understand.

If the energy to run the system aren’t available, the system that depends on them also collapses.

Interesting that you picked a time period where (nonrenewable) fossil fuels took the place of human labor.

According to the R-U theory, also known as abiogenic or abiotic, petroleum is created down in the reactor known as the earth’s core and is forced up through cracks … some petroleum has been analyzed for the date of its origination and found to predate the “dinosaurs” … meaning that it’s not fossil fuel. If that proves correct, then we would have an almost infinite supply of petroleum and natural gas.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Short Answer: just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square. Leaving rest of the world for resources and jobs.

Here is the math:

Start with the number of people times four square feet(standing area).
Look at chart for area of each US state in square feet to see where they fit.

or

Start with a total area like the US divided by four square feet to see how many people can stand in that area.

Using current projections of world population,

By the year 2050 it is projectect that there will be 9.2 billion people on earth.

If each person stood in a 2 foot by 2 foot square, they all will fit in any US State.

Leaving 49 other states to grow food and dispose of waste.

In fact, they would only take up about a fourth of our smallest state of R.I.

Answer: 9200000000 ft² = 330.004 mi² OR 330 mi² and 128000.0 ft²

[geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)

metric-conversions.org/area/square-feet-to-square-miles.htm

Rank State Name Area (Sq Miles)
43 Vermont 9,615
44 New Hampshire 9,283
45 Massachusetts 8,262
46 New Jersey 7,790
47 Hawaii 6,459
48 Connecticut 5,006
49 Delaware 2,026
50 Rhode Island 1,213

theus50.com/area.php

Also, if a person really is concerned about being a bother to the earth they could simply end their life.

Start with total square miles for US,

United States total area: 3,794,083 square miles (including water) – (9,826,630 sq km)

enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

Find a number of square miles that will fit in the US using round numbers.

Answer: 100000000000000 ft² = 3587006.427 mi²

divide by four square feet to find out how many people can fit into that area of the US.

100,000,000,000,000 / 4 = 2.5 × 1013

just over 25 Trillion people could fit in the US standing in a 2 foot by 2 foot square.

Leaving rest of the World to grow foot and get rid of waste, and have places to work.

This also assumes they don’t live in really high-rise condos.

Once you start stacking people up, there is really no limit.

 

[wynnejj]

For the love of God, please stop calling abortion ‘choice.’

Is that what our Savior would call it?

Actually, yes. It is a choice with consequences. In a way, God is Pro-Choice. That is, God has given us the right to choose to be or not to be born again into life eternal. My advice - Choose Life.

 

[Warrior1979]

According to the R-U theory, also known as abiogenic or abiotic, petroleum is created down in the reactor known as the earth’s core and is forced up through cracks … some petroleum has been analyzed for the date of its origination and found to predate the “dinosaurs” … meaning that it’s not fossil fuel. If that proves correct, then we would have an almost infinite supply of petroleum and natural gas.

The problem with the theory is that it is simply a theory. There is no credible evidence, at least what I’ve seen, to suggest that it is true.

I don’t think that it is outside the realm of possibility that hydrocarbons are being created in the earth’s core, but at this point we know nothing about it form or if we could use it…purely hypothetical. I don’t think it’s wise to base one’s existence on conjecture.