Is the world overpopulated?

[Beloved2010]

Okay, so I’ve heard several different arguments about overpopulation of the world and when I do see the basis of their origin and the problems that they present, I’m not convinced that the world is overpopulated or ever will be.

Here are two arguments that I have heard:

1. Look at all the starving people in the world. There are people starving and we can’t feed them.
2. As many people that are in the world are having a negative effect on the world. There are more species going extinct, global warming is occurring as a result of too many people, and other such arguments.

Here are my thoughts:

First, there is enough food; we just don’t have the best means to transport it there. Second, these arguments seems to allude to a concept that says there is an ideal number of people that the world can sustain easily, which implies that we already hit that ideal number. Furthermore, if there is an ideal number of people, then every child born after that number is reached is a burden on the world. This one I have a hard time believing because I know that every person is a blessing to the world. A child cannot be both a blessing and a burden. The two are necessarily incompatible.

This second argument I would like to focus on. Am I right, am I wrong? I think I am right, but I have a hard time arguing it.

 

[buffalo]

Look at the land available - the entire worlds population can fit in the state of Texas. So land is available. This is just land mass. The earth is 3/4 water.

Food - modern agriculture is more than sufficient. Corrupt governments are a reason people do not get food we send over there.

Overpopulation is a myth.

The overpopulation crowd wants to depopulate to around 300 million. This they say is good for the earth and animals. :banghead:

 

[TheRealJuliane]

To the contrary - so many of the world’s nations are UNDER-populated and are not keeping up with replacement needs. Birth control and abortion have done an incredible harm to God’s plan for us! Russia is now providing government benefits for people to HAVE children!

We can feed many more people now, but unfortunately, the people are being aborted and not created in the first place.

 

[weslucas]

Okay, so I’ve heard several different arguments about overpopulation of the world and when I do see the basis of their origin and the problems that they present, I’m not convinced that the world is overpopulated or ever will be.

Here are two arguments that I have heard:

1. Look at all the starving people in the world. There are people starving and we can’t feed them.
2. As many people that are in the world are having a negative effect on the world. There are more species going extinct, global warming is occurring as a result of too many people, and other such arguments.

Here are my thoughts:

First, there is enough food; we just don’t have the best means to transport it there. Second, these arguments seems to allude to a concept that says there is an ideal number of people that the world can sustain easily, which implies that we already hit that ideal number. Furthermore, if there is an ideal number of people, then every child born after that number is reached is a burden on the world. This one I have a hard time believing because I know that every person is a blessing to the world. A child cannot be both a blessing and a burden. The two are necessarily incompatible.

This second argument I would like to focus on. Am I right, am I wrong? I think I am right, but I have a hard time arguing it.

Yes, you are definitely on the right track. There are a couple interesting points that you brought up, many of which are supported by the evidence.

So, the problem isn’t that we have too many people, it’s that we don’t have enough people. Sounds crazy at first right? But I have done fairly extensive academic research on the issue, and it is certainly the reality of the situation.'Since the early 1970s, the world’s fertility rate-the total number of children the average woman will bear in her lifetime-has gone from 6 to 2.9, and it continues to drop. Replacement rate fertility in the absence of major wars, epidemics, or famine is 2.1 children per woman. In the First World of Europe, North America, and Japan, cultural and economic changes opposed to family and children combined with effective forms of contraception and abortion have led to a catastrophic decline in fertility that will destroy most of those societies in the next few decades, if current trends continue. In the Third World, billions of dollars of population control funds combined with the encroaching materialistic and hedonistic values from the apostate Christian West have dramatically reduced fertility rates.

The world faces a shortage of labor to support its economies and, especially, to support its aging population. Worker-to-retiree ratios will drop sharply over the next few decades, raising the question of how all these old people will be supported. And, eventually, it will raise the question of how these countries will be populated.’ The Population Research Institute is a great resource for this issue. I would encourage you to check them out at pop.org. I have heard a series of lectures by the President of the Organization, and he is very wise indeed. Spend some time at pop.org and watch the “Pop 101” videos.

Please feel free to let me know if something doesn’t make sense.

Continue seeking truth!

 

[KP3243]

There isn’t a population problem there is a food distribution problem if everyone on earth ate like the Japanese, we could feed 11 billion people but we don’t.

 

[Samuel63]

When I take a flight across America and see how much wide open space there is, I wonder why anyone believes over-population is an issue. I dug into this a little and discovered the following. There is a minority group that has some influence in the media that is promoting this issue for no good reason. Most of the support is from the pro-abortion crowd. There are a few, such as Ted Turner, that are just plain nutty and want the world to dwindle to about 500,000.

God said however, “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth.” I believe we should trust God and not worry.

 

[bzkoss236]

We are by no means overpopulated. Some specific areas could be, in terms of population density, but people just don’t want to spread out, but considering there is such a thing as “rural America” and such places in other areas of the world, we are not overpopulated.

1. In terms of food, we definitely have the food to feed those that are hungry, but they don’t get that food because of a few possible reasons:

1. People don’t send food over to them, either under the mentality of “someone else has probably already sent plenty of food over, so they don’t need my food”, they just don’t care enough, they do care, but are clingy to what is theirs, or they legitimately need the food and cannot send any over because of that.
2. The foreign governments or militias prevent those who want to help from bringing food to the people within “their” territory, or they take the food claiming that they’ll send it out themselves, but keep it for themselves.
3. Not enough money is raised to be able to send the food over and some of it may end up becoming spoiled. Or not enough food is received to make the shipment of it worth the trip.

1. The negative effects on the world I would say is caused more by population density combined with the use of pollutants than overpopulation. The extinction of animals could be caused by a natural process, or by the invasion of humans in these parts of the world who take the resources without taking care of the environment around them (but only being in the area to harvest the resources, not settling there).

 

[_Abyssinia]

1/2 the world has a fertility rate below long term replacement level. 40 years ago an average woman 5 or 6 children, now average is 2.6

If the world’s population was put in to Alaska every person would have about 1 half the average size of an American family’s house with back and front yards or nearly 3500 square foot of space

UN say the world will level out at 9.2 billion in 2050 and decline

 

[kelner]

Nothing can grow infinitely on a finite planet. Each living person means production of food and energy required by that person, as well as processing of waste produced by that person. Once you start taking things like these into account – i.e. how much arable lands it takes to feed one person – then you realize that the “all humanity fits in Texas!” argument is bogus. For an easy example, consider the observed collapse of marine ecosystems due to overfishing. If the world is below its design capacity, why are the fish stocks unable to replenish themselves?

The fact that we are able to support the current number of living people we currently have is that we are pillaging non-renewable resources (i.e. oil) and convert them into fertilizer and energy needed for high-intensity farming. Assuming the world’s oil disappers tomorrow, how are you going to make fertilizer or run tractors? You can’t, and suddenly all your high-intensity farming goes bye-bye over night, resulting in mass starvation.

Atop of the fact that we are using non-renewable resources to sustain overselves, we have another problem – we are producing waste that is interefering with the rest of the ecosystem. Arguably, this problem is even more severe than the first one. All that fertilizer eventually ends up washed down by the river into the sea and kills marine life. For example, coral reefs off the coast of China have shrunk by 80% over the last 30 years, corresponding to China’s rapid development: livescience.com/25870-china-coral-reefs.html

The world faces a shortage of labor to support its economies and, especially, to support its aging population. Worker-to-retiree ratios will drop sharply over the next few decades, raising the question of how all these old people will be supported.

And this is a only a problem, because the capitalist system finances any endeavor with debt. Since every debt must be paid back with interest, it logically follows that capitalism must have an infinite growth of GDP to sustain itself. Otherwise, the debts cannot be paid back and the thing collapses. (The governmental debt crisis is another face of the same coin.) Assuming that an employee’s productivity is fixed (it’s not, but bear with me for a moment) infinite GDP growth calls for infinite growth of population. This model has two problems.

The first one is that, as noted above, nothing can grow infinitely on a finite planet, including GDP. GDP is tied to some physically constrained parameters, such as the rate of oil and copper extraction or waste production. Just for that reason infinite growth of GDP is impossible, thus capitalism cannot be sustained indefinitely (sorry!).

The second problem is assumption that tomorrow’s economy will need more workers. To put it bluntly, it will not. Increasing automation decreases costs by eliminating human labor. So we actually have an increasing surplus of labor, as evidenced by unemployment and growth in government bureaucracy. (At large scale, growth of government bureaucracy is simply a way to increase social stability by taking people off the labor market.)

For your information, world population in 2100 will almost certainly be smaller than today. The only question is whether this will happen by gradual decline (as the population control crowd would like), or due to war and starvation… Did you know that there are 3 nuclear powers in Asia heading for an inevitable conflict over fresh water supplies?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indian economist Raj Krishna has said India could provide the whole world’s food supply by increasing crop yields

Half the world has a fertility rate below long term replacement level. Average woman has 2.6 children when 40 years ago it was 5 or 6 children

If the world’s population was put in to Alaska every person would have about 1 half the average size of an American family’s house with back and front yards or nearly 3500 square foot of space

UN say the world will level out at 9.2 billion in 2050 and decline

 

[TheRealJuliane]

When I take a flight across America and see how much wide open space there is, I wonder why anyone believes over-population is an issue. I dug into this a little and discovered the following. There is a minority group that has some influence in the media that is promoting this issue for no good reason. Most of the support is from the pro-abortion crowd. There are a few, such as Ted Turner, that are just plain nutty and want the world to dwindle to about 500,000.

God said however, “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth.” I believe we should trust God and not worry.

Water is an issue in some of those places, more than land itself. But you are right, a lot of this “over-population” nonsense comes from people who think human beings never should have been on the earth in the first place and that we only do harm to the planet. When I see stupid TV shows like, “The Earth Without Us” or whatever, I am disgusted.

 

[kelner]

Indian economist Raj Krishna has said India could provide the whole world’s food supply by increasing crop yields

If we had unlimited amount of phosphorus to make the needed fertilizer, which we don’t. In fact, we’re running out: foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus

If the world’s population was put in to Alaska every person would have about 1 half the average size of an American family’s house with back and front yards or nearly 3500 square foot of space

And you need 30’000 sq.ft. of land to feed one person (i.e. 10 times that). Arable land, not Alaskan tundra.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Overpopulation is almost impossible. Here are the facts:

1. The US government, and I presume other governments, are still paying farmers to not grow food!
2. Yes, fertilizer is expensive, but there are nitrogen fixing bacteria that can do the job just as well. The problem is that their use is not being approved by world governments because they are related to disease causing bacteria (even though these bacteria have none of the genes that cause human disease).
3. Global warming being exacerbated by humans is greatly exaggerated. All of the volcanoes in the world do much more damage than we humans could possibly do.
4. Corrupt governments are paying people to not work.

So no, we are not overpopulated. There is no reason to stop being fruitful and multiplying. After all, in a few decades we might be colonizing the moon and Mars. It’s all possible.

 

[kelner]

1. Global warming being exacerbated by humans is greatly exaggerated. All of the volcanoes in the world do much more damage than we humans could possibly do.

I’d appreciate your source on that.

Oh, and while you’re at it – why is the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide changing in a way which indicates increasing content of fossil carbon?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Nothing can grow infinitely on a finite planet. Each living person means production of food and energy required by that person, as well as processing of waste produced by that person. Once you start taking things like these into account – i.e. how much arable lands it takes to feed one person – then you realize that the “all humanity fits in Texas!” argument is bogus. For an easy example, consider the observed collapse of marine ecosystems due to overfishing. If the world is below its design capacity, why are the fish stocks unable to replenish themselves?

I’ll tackle this issue. Lack of property rights. Imagine if we were still hunter-gatherers of the land, waiting for wild berries to grow or waiting for wild animals to reappear. We would have been dead thousands of years ago. What changed is farming and pastures. Why can’t we do that with water? We don’t have property rights with water, so that’s why there is no conservation of stocks to provide for future catches.

The fact that we are able to support the current number of living people we currently have is that we are pillaging non-renewable resources (i.e. oil) and convert them into fertilizer and energy needed for high-intensity farming. Assuming the world’s oil disappers tomorrow, how are you going to make fertilizer or run tractors? You can’t, and suddenly all your high-intensity farming goes bye-bye over night, resulting in mass starvation.

1. We are not running out of oil.
2. We have other methods of generating electricity besides oil.

Atop of the fact that we are using non-renewable resources to sustain overselves, we have another problem – we are producing waste that is interefering with the rest of the ecosystem. Arguably, this problem is even more severe than the first one. All that fertilizer eventually ends up washed down by the river into the sea and kills marine life. For example, coral reefs off the coast of China have shrunk by 80% over the last 30 years, corresponding to China’s rapid development: livescience.com/25870-china-coral-reefs.html

This is the same argument that the deforestation people make. What they fail to mention is that they grow back! They only look at what’s been logged and declare that it’s been lost forever, even after it reappears.

And this is a only a problem, because the capitalist system finances any endeavor with debt. Since every debt must be paid back with interest, it logically follows that capitalism must have an infinite growth of GDP to sustain itself. Otherwise, the debts cannot be paid back and the thing collapses. (The governmental debt crisis is another face of the same coin.) Assuming that an employee’s productivity is fixed (it’s not, but bear with me for a moment) infinite GDP growth calls for infinite growth of population. This model has two problems.

We don’t have a capitalist system. The way we used to pay for things was deferred consumption (aka savings). This was the way to accumulate capital to finance a big project.

The first one is that, as noted above, nothing can grow infinitely on a finite planet, including GDP. GDP is tied to some physically constrained parameters, such as the rate of oil and copper extraction or waste production. Just for that reason infinite growth of GDP is impossible, thus capitalism cannot be sustained indefinitely (sorry!).

No, things don’t grow forever. But do you know how the market responds? Prices rise! Yet we’re not allowed to do that because inane politicians call it “price gouging”.

The second problem is assumption that tomorrow’s economy will need more workers. To put it bluntly, it will not. Increasing automation decreases costs by eliminating human labor. So we actually have an increasing surplus of labor, as evidenced by unemployment and growth in government bureaucracy. (At large scale, growth of government bureaucracy is simply a way to increase social stability by taking people off the labor market.)

LUDDITE FALLACY. Workers in the 1800s were making the same argument about automization. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

For your information, world population in 2100 will almost certainly be smaller than today. The only question is whether this will happen by gradual decline (as the population control crowd would like), or due to war and starvation… Did you know that there are 3 nuclear powers in Asia heading for an inevitable conflict over fresh water supplies?

I fail to see that argument. The only reason prosperous countries are seeing shrinking populations is because of a cultural revolution that values death more than life.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’d appreciate your source on that.

Oh, and while you’re at it – why is the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide changing in a way which indicates increasing content of fossil carbon?

More importantly, why has the Earth apparently stopped warming, and why can’t the science take into account urban heat island effects?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

No. Not now. It will be eventually, though. The population is growing at a monumentous rate. One of the posts above me may blame contraception and abortion for causing some kind of ‘underpopulation’, but people are still having families, and sometimes quite large ones. Contraception and abortions are mainly used by people who don’t want children. Basically, it’s not preventing people who want children from having them, it’s just allowing those who don’t want children to have sex instead of remaining abstinent.

But, yeah, what with the growing population, environmental issues and non-renewable fuels and energy supplies, it might exist far in the future. Not in our lifetimes, though.

 

[porthos11]

1. Look at all the starving people in the world. There are people starving and we can’t feed them.

It’s not that we can’t feed them. It’s just that we won’t.

1. As many people that are in the world are having a negative effect on the world. There are more species going extinct, global warming is occurring as a result of too many people, and other such arguments.

It depends on who or what we consider more important, humanity or other species or even the planet itself. I for one hold only what the Church teaches: that man is God’s magnum opus, exalted in dignity even more by the incarnation of his Son. I hold that man himself is the most important of all things on the planet.

Therefore, all creatures and even the planet itself are made for the service of man, and not vice versa. Therefore, if species go extinct if it’s for man’s advancement and best interest, then I couldn’t care less.

That said, I also hold the Church’s teaching that man is responsible for the proper stewardship of creation. Therefore man is also responsible for taking care of creation for future generations of man. So with regards to creatures going extinct, man should take care to ensure that that does not happen unnecessarily (there are justified cases where creatures should be made extinct, such as the polio and smallpox viruses). But it’s always with man as its end, not the planet or creatures for their own sake.

 

[kelner]

We don’t have property rights with water, so that’s why there is no conservation of stocks to provide for future catches.

Because water privatization is known to work wonders! academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/VANOVEDR/

1. We are not running out of oil.
2. We have other methods of generating electricity besides oil.

Which sensible method of generating electricity does not involve non-renewable resources?

This is the same argument that the deforestation people make. What they fail to mention is that they grow back! They only look at what’s been logged and declare that it’s been lost forever, even after it reappears.

Data disagrees:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umchan83/PLNT4600/mini1/Global Forest Area.bmp

We don’t have a capitalist system. The way we used to pay for things was deferred consumption (aka savings). This was the way to accumulate capital to finance a big project.

False. Using savings for investment is frowned upon in capitalism. Capitalism prefers use of other people’s money for investment.

I fail to see that argument. The only reason prosperous countries are seeing shrinking populations is because of a cultural revolution that values death more than life.

Prosperous countries have low infant mortality, long life expectation and no wars… Where’s your death?

 

[kelner]

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umgryw...e_and_ecological_footprint_sustainability.jpg