How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Warrior1979]

So let me get this straight…the answer is always a mismanagement of resources.

If I were to attempt to cross the country in my car on a tank of gas, and and ran out of gas after the first 300 miles, I mismanaged my resources.

What if I were to create an agricultural system that was very dependent on nonrenewable fossil fuels. Food production increased, and the population grew accordingly. Then suddenly I ran out of fossil fuels, and production could now only feed, say, half the population. Mismanagement of resources?

We’re actually arguing from different ends of the spectrum. You’re simply arguing that population is irrelevant and it’s always a mismanagement of resources.

I’m simply arguing that the use of resources allows the population to increase. Science aside, that is just common sense. You can have a food support system that feeds 10 people and have a population of 1,000. Once the resources diminish, the population adjusts accordingly. More population simply aggravates the problem by using up resources quickly. In fact, recklessly increasing the population in and of itself is a mismanagement of resources.

From a Christian perspective, keeping this points in mind, the occurrences in the Book of Revelation seem plausible. A few Saudi oil well collapses is all we need for

 

[Warrior1979]

We are debating Malthus’ Overpopulation hypothesis. Which history, nor you, have provided empirical evidence in support of.

BTW, I’m not arguing Malthus’ Overpopulation argument, you are. I’m simply discussing population as it relates to resources, since the current food supply system is highly dependent on nonrenewable, and nonreplaceable, resources.

 

[kimmielittle]

BTW, I’m not arguing Malthus’ Overpopulation argument, you are.

Actually the Original Topic OT ] is “How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?”.

The Overpopulation argument is Malthusian…and I am on target to the OT.

I’m simply discussing population as it relates to resources, since the current food supply system is highly dependent on nonrenewable, and nonreplaceable, resources.

You are indeed, arguing Malthus’;hypothesis.

The key words you use to argue the hypothesis of Malthus, in the above, is “nonrenewable” and “non-replaceable”…Malthus assumes, as do you Another dangerous fallacy ], that these are absolutes.

Is it an absolute truth… that say, “energy” from oil is non-replaceable?

By arguing that it is - you are attempting to defend Malthusian hypothesis.

BUT you also send mixed messages, with the above statement - disagreeing with the Malthusian Hypothesis. .

The key word there is “currant” - With this word you admit technology evolves.

The Malthusian Hypothesis demands stagnate / stalemated technological growth. As I pointed out, numerous times,.technology, mismanagement - management, are variables not even considered in the Malthusian Overpopulation hypothesis.

 

[kimmielittle]

So let me get this straight…the answer is always a mismanagement of resources.

It certainly correlates better than the Overpopulation myth.

If I were to attempt to cross the country in my car on a tank of gas, and and ran out of gas after the first 300 miles, I mismanaged my resources.

Well.l.l.l. yes!!!
One of your most valued of resources it the ability to think. Do you just auto-pilot?

We’re actually arguing from different ends of the spectrum. You’re simply arguing that population is irrelevant and it’s always a mismanagement of resources.

Actually wrong. I’m arguing population is “one” variable BUT not the scape-goat that Malthusian / Overpopulationist embrace.

I’m simply arguing that the use of resources allows the population to increase.

Why are you arguing it? No one here has debated this.

 

[Warrior1979]

You are indeed, arguing Malthus’;hypothesis.

Since I am not familiar with Malthus, it is more proper to say that your taking my argument and comparing it to Malthus.

Is it an absolute truth… that say, “energy” from oil is non-replaceable?

It can only be replaced with something of similar net-energy gain (note: theoretically, there isn’t a net energy gain, because we’re not considering that the amount of energy that went into creating it in the first place). Until someone comes up with that energy source, it is for all practical purposes irreplaceable, and we should plan accordingly.

The key word there is “currant” - With this word you admit technology evolves.

The evolution of technology does not equal a solution to the energy problem. We cannot create an energy source with a net gain; that would violate fundamental thermodynamic principles.

 

[Warrior1979]

It certainly correlates better than the Overpopulation myth.

Remember that when analyzing data, if certain factors are always present, they can for all practical purposes be ignored. If that factor no longer becomes present, then the conclusion is entirely different.

If the resources to feed 1,000 people is part of the experiment, but there are only 10 people, food is a non-issue and can simply be assumed to be a constant. When that 10 people over the course of time multiply to 1,001, it becomes a very relevant issue.

Most people simply ignore our resource use; they couldn’t care less that our food supply is so dependent on nonrenewable resources that nobody has shown can be replaced. As long as they have their food to eat, they can happily ignore the inevitable.

 

[GEddie]

Most people simply ignore our resource use; they couldn’t care less that our food supply is so dependent on nonrenewable resources that nobody has shown can be replaced. As long as they have their food to eat, they can happily ignore the inevitable.

What would you rather they do?

“Everybody going back to nature” is NOT a valid solution; if nothing else, there is not enough square mileage on the planet for that to happen.

There are energy sources that could remove some of the pressure as oil became more scarce; but we don’t use them, because they make nasty-smelling smoke, or disturb the birds, or produce that scary radiation, or… ad nauseum.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Warrior1979]

What would you rather they do?

Simply live sustainably.

“Everybody going back to nature” is NOT a valid solution; if nothing else, there is not enough square mileage on the planet for that to happen.

We will be living a much lower energy lifestyle with a smaller population whether we like it or not. The current order of things is not sustainable.

There are energy sources that could remove some of the pressure as oil became more scarce; but we don’t use them, because they make nasty-smelling smoke, or disturb the birds, or produce that scary radiation, or… ad nauseum.

ICXC NIKA

These are simply temporary solutions that in the best case scenario push the time frame out a few decades.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

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?

sounds like the person asking you is a pessimist…tell them like it is…the Earth isn’t overpopulated…check out this group (they post fantastic videos): overpopulationisamyth.com/

 

[mark_a]

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?

I would ask if this outlook means that each and every couple *must * limit the number of children they have.

Most of the so-called modern world is already at or below zero reproductive population growth by choice. I don’t understand all the hub-bub.

 

[Warrior1979]

sounds like the person asking you is a pessimist

I’m simply a realist. I review the relevant facts and draw conclusions, and couldn’t care less if those conclusions are contrary to any preconceived notions I may have had beforehand or not. It is what it is. Doing so allows one to see reality for what it is, and prepare accordingly. So far, it has worked very well…actually, I tend to underestimate things…situations I’ve commented on in the past tend to be worse than what I predicted.

 

[silentstar]

Its first part is undeniably true. However, the conclusion is misleading.

If we live in a society with free markets, the prices of products tell us how scarce they are compared to one another. If too many people are using copper, the price of copper goes up.

As resources become more scarce and their prices go up (while the price of labor, that is, salaries, go down because there are so many people willing to work), life gets naturally more expensive, and thus people decide how large a family they can afford. There needs to be no social policy of limiting births. A man may prefer to have many kids but be poor, another may think it best to space his children more and provide his family with better things. Another, seeing the cost of life going up while salaries go down, may delay marriage.

HOWEVER, consider that increase of population has two effects: more consumption of resources is only one of them. The other is increase in productivity, as the division of labor becomes more intensive and as there are more people around to have good ideas on how to do things better, use resources more efficiently, more creatively.

Eventually, theoretically, the effect of more consumption trumps the gains of productivity. But there is no indication that we are on such a stage. It seems today, on the contrary, that if more people are born the world will be richer, because the gains in productivity still surpass the increase in consumption. Evidence? Population is growing and the world is richer.

denser populations have been linked to catastrophic rates of mental illness, which have exploded since 1750, according to E. Fuller Torrey, psychiatrist for several decades and author, surviving schizophrenia. people in urban areas are more likely to become ill, also people born in winter/early spring for reasons not known. People with mental illness often improve when they move to lower-population, more rural areas, assuming they are not isolated.

When you are already vulnerable biologically, and you are in a city with all the lights and noise and people - well some people can’t handle that and it contributes to breakdowns.

How this affects your argument is that many people with serious mental illness break down at college age or within the next ten years and being very ill so early in life both limits productivity, b/c many times people can’t enter the workforce or work at low-level jobs, and it causes a lot of suffering.

This can’t be explained by people being ‘weaker’ than they used to be, although that may be a factor if you weren’t raised to work hard. However many people do the best they can to tough it out and have trouble.

 

[silentstar]

The opening statement maybe, but here, again, is an attempt ad hominem. As you well know, ad hominem attempts don’t dilute the facts.

What are the facts stated of the article? Not the interpretation by the journalist… but the facts stated by scientists.

The point I was making,

ca.news.yahoo.com/us-atom-smasher-may-found-force-nature-report-20110406-073624-567.html

edited post. the problem as I always understood nuclear power is with storage. I worked for almost 1 year at the nuclear regulatory commission. I wrote a paper about the disposal of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. This was in 1990. The issue is still being debated.

I personally support the peaceful use of nuclear power but the article cites 3 mile island as the reason research became off-limits in the US. Unfortunately we now have a complete catastrophe: Japan.

Radioactive waste at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant is adding to the woes of engineers battling to prevent a meltdown following the devastating earthquake.

Conditions at the facility - badly damaged by the 8.9 magnitude earthquake on March 11 - have further deteriorated. A Japanese nuclear safety official has since admitted that water inside the waste fuel storage pool of one damaged reactor may be boiling.

waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display/9877928877/articles/waste-management-world/markets-policy-finance/2011/03/Waste_Adding_to_Japan_s_Nuclear_Crises_Following_Quake.html

You can go a long time with nuclear waste and not have an accident but something like this happens and research is like the third rail. And it was no one’s fault b/c the problems were caused by natural disaster, not error on the part of the people at the facility. People can try to reduce the risk of problems but they can’t be eliminated and when there is widespread contamination due to radioactive material it scares people.

edit: I realized when I edited your post that you were citing a different article. I was thinking of the one where the UK journalist said we needed a new Manhattan Project for nuclear energy and after 3 mile island the US stopped supporting research. You linked to a discovery of a new elementary particle; I don’t know how that will affect current understanding in physics.

 

[kimmielittle]

edit: I realized when I edited your post that you were citing a different article. I was thinking of the one where the UK journalist said we needed a new Manhattan Project for nuclear energy and after 3 mile island the US stopped supporting research. “You linked to a discovery of a new elementary particle” I don’t know how that will affect current understanding in physics.

“You linked to a discovery of a new elementary particle”

The point I was making is technology evolves and because of this not being one of the variables factored, along with management of resources, etc - Is why the Malthusian Overpopulation hypothesis fails.

 

[kimmielittle]

Simply live sustainably.

If you mean manage our resources better But that is for another thread.

We will be living a much lower energy lifestyle with a smaller population whether we like it or not. The current order of things is not sustainable.

You seem to be quoting Malthus’ hypothesis, almost word for word, here - it matters not if you know the hypothesis or the man.

 

[Warrior1979]

If you mean manage our resources better

And have a Plan B for when those resources are no longer available (at a net energy gain).

You seem to be quoting Malthus’ hypothesis, almost word for word, here - it matters not if you know the hypothesis or the man.

Nope…in fact, some of the things I mentioned, such as entropy, weren’t even known in his day.

 

[Warrior1979]

The point I was making is technology evolves and because of this not being one of the variables factored, along with management of resources, etc - Is why the Malthusian Overpopulation hypothesis fails.

I find it interesting that people place so much faith in technology, hoping that the future will solve the very serious problems we see forthcoming today.

While technology has helped us advance, the main thing that got us where we are is the discovery of easily obtainable energy sources. Take that away and there is nothing to power that technology. We have the ability to do all sorts of amazing things…all at a net energy loss.

 

[kimmielittle]

Remember that when analyzing data, if certain factors are always present, they can for all practical purposes be ignored. If that factor no longer becomes present, then the conclusion is entirely different.

Good advice. Now, apply it to the Overpopulation myth.

If the resources to feed 1,000 people is part of the experiment, but there are only 10 people, food is a non-issue and can simply be assumed to be a constant. When that 10 people over the course of time multiply to 1,001, it becomes a very relevant issue.

Absolutely! ** IF **, that last part of your statement, were the proven / case. It is not and so becomes nothing but speculation.

. As long as they have their food to eat, they can happily ignore the inevitable.

The word “inevitable” assumes that your speculation is correct.

I have asked, many times, for you to provide evidence links ] to your claims / statements.
No one is going to accept your subjective speculations.

In short, if you can’t convince me - how do you intend to convince grownups?

 

[kimmielittle]

Nope…in fact, some of the things I mentioned, such as entropy, weren’t even known in his day.

Boltzmann’s constant or Rudolf Clausius Thermodynamics - doesn’t support, nor go against, the Overpopulation myth.

Let’s try to keep to topic.please

 

[kimmielittle]

I find it interesting that people place so much faith in technology, hoping that the future will solve the very serious problems we see forthcoming today.

How do you define technology?

The sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology

I call it a knowledge base.