Is the world overpopulated?

[manualman]

Like I said, if Africa is doing well now then great. The people in that area, I would assume, are able to feed their children to the point that they won’t starve to death, correct?

Neil, you are seriously ignorant on this issue. Please get informed. Your posts are so insulting to the people of Africa who have suffered one injustice after another.

Imagine if robbers bashed in the doors to your house, stole all your possessions and made off with the business equipment you used to make your living. Worse, they did the same to your insurance company, so you’ve lost everything. You show with your family up for aid at the welfare office and some guy in a suit drives by, lowers his window and yells “You should have thought about how you were going to feed those brats before you made them.” That guy is you.

Africa has no inherent natural resource problems that prevent it from making twice as many people as actually live there fat and happy. Famine in Africa is largely a result of warlords and villains, not too many children.

 

[Neildown]

Neil, you are seriously ignorant on this issue. Please get informed. Your posts are so insulting to the people of Africa who have suffered one injustice after another.

Imagine if robbers bashed in the doors to your house, stole all your possessions and made off with the business equipment you used to make your living. Worse, they did the same to your insurance company, so you’ve lost everything. You show with your family up for aid at the welfare office and some guy in a suit drives by, lowers his window and yells “You should have thought about how you were going to feed those brats before you made them.” That guy is you.

Africa has no inherent natural resource problems that prevent it from making twice as many people as actually live there fat and happy. Famine in Africa is largely a result of warlords and villains, not too many children.

If you had been paying attention to the context of the issue being discussed, you would find I was merely using Africa as a synthetic example. I never said that Africa literally overpopulated itself. In the context of the discussion, the fact is that what has been happening to African citizens in Africa is a fairly accurate example of what happens to a starving population.

 

[Maxirad]

Check out this video.

 

[wynnejj]

I take it that the fundamental question of the OP is how does one determine an ideal number for world population growth. What one has to do first is determine what resourse is an absolute requirement that is finite, can accept no substitution, can be found nowhere else, and is in shortest supply. Then the question becomes for how long does your world population need to be sustained. If you say “forever”, then you can stop right now with adding to world population or, you could devise a policy where one starts at a specific growth rate and then halves each successive year where limit of the growth rate approaches but never reaches zero. If you give it a specific number of years … say, another millenium … then you can make some concrete optimum predictions based on the amount of the specific resource available and the consumption needs per person annually, etc. That is, science should be able to mathematically calculate the ideal number. Those who say that the ideal number is much lower than current world population are factoring in other species that may be consuming the shortest supply ingredient and trying to optimize for all species. The philosophies vary widely depending on how much priority you put on other species. (For a good idea about varying views, see the thread on shooting skwerls and arming bears).

 

[migueltojose]

no - resources are undermanaged

 

[CaptFun]

No - God knows what He is doing. :yup:

Yes - by people who pose questions ***LIKE THIS! *** :nunchuk: :dancing: - lol

 

[Ridgerunner]

I take it that the fundamental question of the OP is how does one determine an ideal number for world population growth. What one has to do first is determine what resourse is an absolute requirement that is finite, can accept no substitution, can be found nowhere else, and is in shortest supply.

A good way to think of it in a way. But what would that resource be, and how do we know it is irreplaceable?

I remember reading how, in the 17th Century (likely before and after) Europe was in a terrible situation because timber resources had been seriously depleted, and commerce depended on that resource. (wooden ships, carts, etc) Discovery of America and utilization of its forests aleviated that irreplaceable resource problem. Then, of course, they began building ships and other methods of conveyance out of iron, then steel, then other things.

I recall reading that at the end of the 19th century, fully 1/3 of America’s agricultural product went to the maintenance of horses. It seemed, too, that the potential for increased agricultural production had hit a peak. Seemed we had hit the wall. But then along came the internal combustion engine and the horse population plummeted and, at the same time, lots of new agricultural practices allowed for immense increases in production. And we still see them. Roundup Ready soybeans, dryland corn, spring corn, summer corn, 60 day corn, 90day corn, intense pasture rotation for cattle, (and yes, CAFOs) on and on. Have they run out of ideas? Doesn’t seem so to me, since I see so many new ones all the time. I saw the other day that in various places and with varying results, “ocean farming” is being tried with salmon, bluefin and other species. We don’t yet know how that will turn out. But on those occasions when it does work, the production is tremendous. Maybe there are presently predictable limitations to that. But maybe any guess we make today will seem laughable in 2090. One thing we do know; the resources of the sea were once much greater than now…so great that taverns in the East used to give away unlimited sturgeon or caviar to anybody who would buy a drink. Can that plenitude be restored? Massively increased? We don’t know.

That’s part of the problem with predicting “optimum population” levels. Nobody even has a clue what, say, replacement of subsistence farming in Africa with “American-style” farming might produce. We do know that subsistence farming in the U.S. was once pervasive and not very productive, but that it all changed. Nobody knows what the next structural materials will be. Nobody knows even how we’ll heat our houses in 2100. Nobody even knows how much petroleum there really is in the South China Sea.

I guess I’ll have to say that I’m automatically sceptical of any declaration that something or other that’s an essential and limited resource is the measuring stick for maximum population. There have been too many predictions of that, and all of them have so far proved wrong.

 

[migueltojose]

A good way to think of it in a way. But what would that resource be, and how do we know it is irreplaceable?

That’s part of the problem with predicting “optimum population” levels. Nobody even has a clue what, say, replacement of subsistence farming in Africa with “American-style” farming might produce. We do know that subsistence farming in the U.S. was once pervasive and not very productive, but that it all changed. Nobody knows what the next structural materials will be. Nobody knows even how we’ll heat our houses in 2100. Nobody even knows how much petroleum there really is in the South China Sea.

I guess I’ll have to say that I’m automatically sceptical of any declaration that something or other that’s an essential and limited resource is the measuring stick for maximum population. There have been too many predictions of that, and all of them have so far proved wrong.

Technology and productivity have always been the answer. I trust they will be again. Research and development is vital.

The US should be energy independent by 2020 due to horizontal fracking and capping the natural gas instead of burning it off. The impact to gas prices were disastrous (for the producers) but it was the right thing to do.

I’d think solar is the key. Someone will figure out a way to fragment, multiply and concentrate the rays with miniature mirror balls or something cheap and simple. Once we get cheap, clean energy the planet will resuscitate. Knowing the way things work it will be just in the knick of time. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Meanwhile we need to make babies so they can do the research and development and make the inventions necessary. How many have we lost. How much have we slowed our progress. We are the most vital resource.

 

[GWright]

The world is not overpopulated, nor anywhere near it.

The only credible criteria for considering overpopulation are:

• living space (the vast majority of the worlds surface is not inhabited)
• resources (we got plenty of wood, stone and natural materials for houses and clothes etc)
• food generation capacity (majority of the worlds land is not currently cultivated)

Considering any or all of these show the world is not overpopulated.

Many in the west - usually secular people - like to pretend the reasons for famine and poverty are “overpopulation” - but, in reality, it is greedy western lifestyles which are to blame.

To give an example, take my home, the UK:

• we waste as much food as we consume (meaning we have enough food to support double our current population)
• our food waste was (in 2011) equivalent to £10 billion
• the UK only gave £8.5 billion in aid, in 2011

So, we waste *more * than we give in aid to help the needy.

Yes, when we see pictures of starvation or poverty on our TV screens, secular people will claim its down to ‘overpopulation’ and will go on to attack the Catholic Church over its ideas on contraception etc.

This kind of stupidity is called “wilful self delusion” - which is, ironically, a charge often leveled at we religious people.

All western nations have a similar, abysmal record to the UK, wasting more than they give in aid, but of course the USA has the worst record by a country mile. (In america, the common sentiment is - why have just a quarter pounder, when you could stuff a whole cow down your throat?)

The picture becomes even worse, when you consider that - of food not wasted - much of it is eaten unnecessarily, (pure greed), to the extent that the majority of the adult population in places like the UK/US are now fat (overweight or actually obese).

I visited Florida recently (2011) - my first time in the US - and I was shocked and disgusted to see many adults using morotised scooters to get about. Not because they were disabled, or infirm or elderly, but because they were literally *too fat * to walk under their own steam.

At Downtown Disney, we saw a really fat woman in such a scooter who had become stuck, as the scooter didnt have enough power to get her up a very gentle slope. (Indeed, I was on foot, and I only noticed the slope at all, because she couldnt get up it). So, two grown men were pushing the scooter from the back, and even with their help, it was still a real struggle. It would almost have been funny, if it wasnt so tragic and sickening.

What is particularly digusting is that eating to great excess and food-waste have now become entertainment in the west - eg the TV program “Man vs Food” and the American competitive eating circuit.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, people starve to death for want of a cup of rice.

I am not surprised that the words “west” and “waste” are not too distinct.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To give an example, take my home, the UK:

• we waste as much food as we consume (meaning we have enough food to support double our current population)
• our food waste was (in 2011) equivalent to £10 billion
• the UK only gave £8.5 billion in aid, in 2011

So, we waste *more * than we give in aid to help the needy.

All western nations have a similar, abysmal record to the UK, wasting more than they give in aid, but of course the USA has the worst record by a country mile. (In america, the common sentiment is - why have just a quarter pounder, when you could stuff a whole cow down your throat?)

The picture becomes even worse, when you consider that - of food not wasted - much of it is eaten unnecessarily, (pure greed), to the extent that the majority of the adult population in places like the UK/US are now fat (overweight or actually obese).

I visited Florida recently (2011) - my first time in the US - and I was shocked and disgusted to see many adults using morotised scooters to get about. Not because they were disabled, or infirm or elderly, but because they were literally *too fat * to walk under their own steam.

At Downtown Disney, we saw a really fat woman in such a scooter who had become stuck, as the scooter didnt have enough power to get her up a very gentle slope. (Indeed, I was on foot, and I only noticed the slope at all, because she couldnt get up it). So, two grown men were pushing the scooter from the back, and even with their help, it was still a real struggle. It would almost have been funny, if it wasnt so tragic and sickening.

What is particularly digusting is that eating to great excess and food-waste have now become entertainment in the west - eg the TV program “Man vs Food” and the American competitive eating circuit.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, people starve to death for want of a cup of rice.

I am not surprised that the words “west” and “waste” are not too distinct.

I find it hard to get into too high a dudgeon over food waste, because I don’t know how avoidable it is. Some of it is avoidable for sure; e.g., if the leftover soup stays in the fridge too long and is given to the dog. My wife and I could have eaten it sooner if we had been attentive.

But some of it is questionably avoidable. We buy a bag of grapes and for some reason possibly having to do with “shelf life” or even conditions when they were grown, they start to mold almost immediately; well before I can eat them all.

Being a rather smallish fellow getting older, and not being used to eating huge amounts anyway, I find it very difficult not to waste almost anything bought in a restaurant or fast food store. The portions are set, and they’re just too big for me. All of it is too salty anyway, and at a point I just feel “salted down” and can’t force myself to eat all of it.

A friend of mine used to go around to the back of food stores and load his pickup with fruit and vegetables thrown away, in order to feed his hogs. Well, how did that happen? Did the store know in advance that it was going to throw food away, or did it buy what it thought its customers might buy, but find that they wouldn’t buy it all?

I think a lot of food waste, probably in the UK and the US both, is caused by the processes by which it is produced, then processed, then presented to the consumer.

But that doesn’t mean any of it could have been made available to those who don’t have a bowl of rice.

One quick story. A friend of mind processes protein, mostly for pet food. His company goes around to the food processors, largely poultry plants, and buys the offal and the secondary products nobody else will buy. Among those things are things like wingtips, backs, necks, gizzards…things that are perfectly edible, but which almost nobody will buy. Poultry livers too, are produced in massively greater quantities than people will buy as well.

It occurred to him that he could turn the human consumable stuff into an extremely nutritious and flavorful powder. He used the meat, bones, cartilage, everything. He wanted to GIVE it away to people in the third world as a charitable act. He figured people could make soup of it, or put it on their otherwise meager rice or sorghum meals and get a tremendous nutritional boost from it. And they would have. But the government wouldn’t let him do it because third world governments opposed it. Or at least this government said they did. Those governments felt (or claimed) it would disrupt their local economies and markets.

So it all goes to dogs and cats.