Is the world overpopulated?

[smndtupidisaftr]

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

It’s never been tried.

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

For the time being we are fine with oil and nuclear power. They’re not running out. The technology of solar power is getting better every day.

Data disagrees:

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

That’s a 3.6% decrease. Not concerned.

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

And people only invest when they expect to make their money back. This is different from the current system where you borrow money from the bank that they make out of thin air.

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

Abortion. Euthanasia.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It depends what you mean by “overpopulation.” If you mean is the population of the earth greater than the earth can sustain, the answer is no. In fact, it will always be know, because the population will rapidly readjust to the external conditions.

If you mean is can the earth continue to sustain increasing population at the current rate of resource usage, the answer is a flat out no. People that argue it is don’t focus on the relevant issues, which is resources. They’ll point out things such as fitting everyone in Texas or vast amounts of unpopulated land. We are currently using fossil-fuel resources are a rate far beyond their replenishment rate. They are also becoming harder to process, meaning we have to use more and at a faster rate to get the same usable energy as in the past.

The other discussions are all related to energy. Example, modern farming requires huge (name removed by moderator)uts of non-renewable energy (name removed by moderator)uts; desalinating sea water requires huge amounts of nonrenewable energy; etc.

 

[kelner]

It’s never been tried.

Oh, it has, in the so-called Third World. Worked wonders, as I said.

Abortion. Euthanasia.

How about trading these for war, famine and disease?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Oh, it has, in the so-called Third World. Worked wonders, as I said.

How about trading these for war, famine and disease?

You mean countries that don’t respect property rights have problems with property? Shocker.

Corrupt governments cause those problems.

 

[Neildown]

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:

If I’m correct, the U.S. alone wastes around $65 billion in food every year. I don’t think this is counting the excess that we consume either (which should be of some significance, considering about 1/3 of the nation is obese).

 

[Neildown]

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

God also states vehemently, over and over, “moderation in everything.”

 

[mab23]

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

They are not starving because their is not enough food, they are starving because they don’t have the resources or knowledge or both to make food available. infact we have more than plenty of food in the world to feed everyone!

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.

animals are not going extinct because of humans being born but of human decisions to tear down animal habitats for whatever projects they are doing it for. Global warming has not direct effect on the population this is a daft theory.

 

[MidnightSun12]

This is the pessismistic mind of human secularism that totally denies the miraculous. Simple fact: God never gives us more then we can handle. It’s sin that causes suffering and hardship, there is no such thing as too many babies.

This video talks about how the world was supposed to have exceeded its food production capabilities in 1890 according to Thomas Malthus… our population today is more then 4 times what it was in 1890. Then in the 1960’s they were saying that “inevitable” food shortages would cause 1/5 of the world’s population to be wiped out by the end of the 1970’s:

youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

The sad truth is that at least 1/5 of the world’s population has indeed been wiped out… but it has been murder which was done under the mantra of this “climate change” and “overpopulation” garbage. For every baby brutally murdered through abortion, 20 babies are murdered through the birth control pill. We have extinguished billions of people from our planet through murder. This will be the true cause of our suffering. The demographic winter that is coming will bring true calamity to our society (and environment) through economic disaster that will cause wars as entire nations cease to exist.

Yes, the earth is a closed system, but who’s to say that a growing population wouldn’t have been accompanied by the necessary technological advancements to sustain that growth? Who’s to say that our space program wouldn’t have accelerated since the 1960’s rather then getting cancelled, or that God wouldn’t have given us a break-through in nuclear fusion that would have allowed us to start colonizing space? Through Christ all things are possible, without Him… Well, we’re about to find out…

 

[Brendan]

. 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. it.

You would be correct. To imply that the world is overpopulated would also imply that God created too many people, which is impossible for a Perfect God.

It would be more than God just ‘allowing’ more people than He wishes to have on Earth. God is an active creator, a person cannot come into existence without God directly wishing for it to happen.

Ergo, not only is the world NOT overpopulated, but, due to war, murder and abortion, there are fewer people on Earth now than God desires there to be.

 

[Brendan]

God also states vehemently, over and over, “moderation in everything.”

But God will not create a child when He would not desire it.

Ergo, we CAN trust God, as His Will and Knowledge are superior to our own.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

God also states vehemently, over and over, “moderation in everything.”

Where in Scripture does Jesus advocate “moderation?” Please point to those passages.

His death was not moderate. Neither was his ministry while on the earth.

 

[kelner]

It would be more than God just ‘allowing’ more people than He wishes to have on Earth. God is an active creator, a person cannot come into existence without God directly wishing for it to happen.

If so, why does overfishing exist? If the planet was not overpopulated, we would be unable to deplete fish stocks… but we are.

 

[Neildown]

But God will not create a child when He would not desire it.

Ergo, we CAN trust God, as His Will and Knowledge are superior to our own.

God doesn’t expect us to overpopulate ourselves to the point that it would be morally abominable - we’re expected to rely on common sense (logic) just as much as on His words, as the two go hand in hand. To assume that we can continue to exponentially multiply our numbers without a care of whether or not we can sustain them is insulting to human intelligence. If we CAN sustain more growth (which we can for some time [assuming we pick up efficiency in food distribution/production], but eventually it will stop by A, B, or C means), great. If we can’t, I hope you have an excuse for legitimizing the starvation of entire populations - because that’s already happening in other countries.

Furthermore - is it Catholic doctrine that we must have as many children as we can? Answer: No. Married couples are bound to conceive child(ren), but not so many children that they can’t be fed or housed.

Where in Scripture does Jesus advocate “moderation?” Please point to those passages.

His death was not moderate. Neither was his ministry while on the earth.

This is of no relevance to what I said in any way, shape, or form. If you don’t understand the meaning of moderation then you need to brush up on theology - no offense.

Moderation is not a demeaning or limiting term in Catholic theology. A good self-“moderated” life is essentially the ideal.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Not to mention the rotting forest floors contribution.

What happens when you boil a pot of water? The heat escapes. The earth is how many degrees? Outer space is how many degrees?

When the earth’s atmosphere expands it presents more surface area to radiate excess heat into space. Quite a neat little design don’t ya think?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

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

I couldn’t open your source on phosphorus. But we’re certainly not running out of it. It is the 12th most abundant element in the earth’s crust; about 10% of the amount of silicon, of which most of the earth is made.

There are various sources of phosphorus. Some are being used a little, some a lot. Many are not used at all.

Phosphorus is one of the most recyclable of elements. Undoubtedly some washes into the sea. You can even buy phosphorus derived from seawater. But most that is not in the soil is captured in plants and animals. Except for that amount that is sealed in caskets containing human bodies, most of it returns to the soil eventually, in one way or another, and the phosphorus in human bodies often returns to the soil as well. Depends on the type of casket and its longevity.

The average size of a farm in China is less than 30,000 square feet,(about half that) and China is self-sufficient in food, though it may soon become a net importer. Part of the net importing potential is due to better quality dietary expectations. Part of it is due to desertification from overgrazing and flooding from dams.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If so, why does overfishing exist? If the planet was not overpopulated, we would be unable to deplete fish stocks… but we are.

Overfishing exists because technology is so much more efficient in catching them than it once was. It has nothing to do with overpopulation per se.

I’m not saying the seas are not overfished. I don’t doubt they are. But dietary habits have a lot to do with it. Americans eat a lot of ocean fish, and it’s touted constantly. But the national beef herd is the lowest it has been in 50 years. Some of that is due to price cycles. Some of it is due to greater efficiency in producing it. Some of it is due to changed dietary habits. 100 years ago you couldn’t get an ocean fish dinner at every restaurant. Today you can. That’s because they can catch massively more fish than they could 100 years ago, and they can transport it great distances without spoiling.

To the extent Americans eat a lot of fish now due to health concerns, they could accomplish the same benefit from switching from grain-fed beef to grass-fed. But there’s no organized market in grass-fed, so it’s terribly expensive.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

If so, why does overfishing exist? If the planet was not overpopulated, we would be unable to deplete fish stocks… but we are.

Because we do not allow property rights in the ocean. As such, the long-term assets of the ocean cannot be protected because no one owns them. There is no incentive to do such a thing unless we allow people to own ocean property.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

God also states vehemently, over and over, "moderation in everything."

God doesn’t expect us to overpopulate ourselves to the point that it would be morally abominable - we’re expected to rely on common sense (logic) just as much as on His words, as the two go hand in hand. To assume that we can continue to exponentially multiply our numbers without a care of whether or not we can sustain them is insulting to human intelligence. If we CAN sustain more growth (which we can for some time [assuming we pick up efficiency in food distribution/production], but eventually it will stop by A, B, or C means), great. If we can’t, I hope you have an excuse for legitimizing the starvation of entire populations - because that’s already happening in other countries.

Furthermore - is it Catholic doctrine that we must have as many children as we can? Answer: No. Married couples are bound to conceive child(ren), but not so many children that they can’t be fed or housed.

This is of no relevance to what I said in any way, shape, or form. If you don’t understand the meaning of moderation then you need to brush up on theology - no offense.

Moderation is not a demeaning or limiting term in Catholic theology. A good self-“moderated” life is essentially the ideal.

You stated as above, "God also states vehemently, over and over, “moderation in everything.” I want to know WHERE God states that.

That’s YOUR statement, not God’s. Neither in the Old Testament, nor the New, is God vehemently stating, “Moderation in all things.”

 

[Neildown]

You stated as above, "God also states vehemently, over and over, “moderation in everything.” I want to know WHERE God states that.

That’s YOUR statement, not God’s. Neither in the Old Testament, nor the New, is God vehemently stating, “Moderation in all things.”

The whole book of Psalms, the whole book of Wisdom, the whole book of Ecclesiastes, the whole book of Ecclesiasticus, and pretty-much the whole New Testament, just from what I’ve read of the Bible - though I haven’t read the whole thing yet. Put them all together and you basically have an interwoven guide to self-moderation. My point doesn’t need to be proven by a handful of verses - it’s basically proven by the Bible itself and by the Church itself.

 

[Brendan]

God doesn’t expect us to overpopulate ourselves to the point that it would be morally abominable .

The point is WE CAN"T overpopulate.

You are looking at it as if we are the ones who create new people, it is God, we simply cooperate with the creation process.

If a man and a woman decided to procreate and God did not actively want it to happen, it would not. The man and woman cannot create a new soul, there would be no new life.