Is the world overpopulated?

[Neildown]

The point is WE CAN"T overpopulate.

Go visit Africa. But since most people cannot do that, go Google pictures from Africa.

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.

There does exist a concept known as “too much of a good thing.”

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Go visit Africa. But since most people cannot do that, go Google pictures from Africa.

Africa is immensely rich in natural resources. They shouldn’t be poor, and wouldn’t be if not for corrupt governments.

There does exist a concept known as “too much of a good thing.”

Then it’s time for better economic policies there that promote growth.

 

[InJesusItrust]

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

The super-wealthy usually make this case and throw money at anyone who will make this case. Imagine a man eating a 3 course dinner inside his yacht while telling the rest of the malnutritioned villagers that there just isn’t enough to go around and they are being irresponsible.

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.

If a man in a lifeboat in the middle of an ocean appoints himself leaders and starts deciding that some person must be eaten or everyone dies, what would God say?

 

[Neildown]

Africa is immensely rich in natural resources. They shouldn’t be poor, and wouldn’t be if not for corrupt governments.

No kidding. That’s completely regardless of the fact that the population has willed itself to go over it’s capabilities - which is exactly my point. Eventually, if humanity grows with complete disregard to what is and is not sustainable, we’re going to have some* big *problems. That being said, Catholics are not called to create what would perhaps be the biggest disaster in human history.

Then it’s time for better economic policies there that promote growth.

Better yet, they should first learn how to sustain their current numbers.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

No kidding. That’s completely regardless of the fact that the population has willed itself to go over it’s capabilities - which is exactly my point. Eventually, if humanity grows with complete disregard to what is and is not sustainable, we’re going to have some* big *problems. That being said, Catholics are not called to create what would perhaps be the biggest disaster in human history.

But the problem isn’t overpopulation. It’s that they have a third world country that can’t advance because their governments are not conducive to long-term investments. A company could make a ton of money hiring laborers there and setting up a plant, but with the risk of a government taking it over and seizing the assets, who’s going to do it? This hurts the company and the people there who are denied good paying jobs.

Better yet, they should first learn how to sustain their current numbers.

Respect for property rights would be a great first step.

 

[buffalo]

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **

 

[Beloved2010]

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!

You make interesting points, but how much of a problem really is a dwindling population? Can you provide some evidence of how in several decades we will be destroyed by this problem?

That seems like a relatively minor problem compared to the impact that we have on this world, but then the problem is not necessarily overpopulation but rather a misuse of resources. Less people would mean less people to misuse resources. I believe what really underlies a dwindling population is a closed mind and heart to the gift of life and co-creating with God. We have many non-renewable resources that simply won’t last at the rate that we consume them, and I don’t see people decreasing their consumption of these anytime soon.

I’m sure that the whole world could theoretically live in harmony with all creatures, but as we constantly expand we end up killing off whole forests and populations of animals. This is my concern. Our water use is also a concern. As someone else stated, in the east there are conflicts over fresh water. Less people would be an easy solution, but most likely the wrong one.

So I guess the question then comes to this: is it possible to sustain all resources indefinitely with current technology and future advances? If so, how? Let’s include animal population with this also. I think it is possible, but would require a vast reconsideration of how we use them. We are not very good stewards of this world right now, but with improvements I see it possible.

If it is possible, then by this criterion, the overpopulation myth will be completely debunked. If not, then overpopulation is indeed a problem.

 

[KP3243]

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

Man is uniquely different than all other creatures on earth. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Meaning we have a part in His divinity, it’s why we have the
capacity for thought and reason and why we are stewards of all other creatures. Ever wonder why man even though he is the smartest of all creatures, takes the longest to be independent of his mother and father? Ever wonder why men hormonally change and their testosterone drops significantly right before his wife gives birth? Their wife secretes a hormone through her skin that drops testosterone levels by a third. God in all His wisdom figured that the baby stands a better chance at survival if it has both a mother and a father around at birth.

 

[Neildown]

But the problem isn’t overpopulation. It’s that they have a third world country that can’t advance because their governments are not conducive to long-term investments. A company could make a ton of money hiring laborers there and setting up a plant, but with the risk of a government taking it over and seizing the assets, who’s going to do it? This hurts the company and the people there who are denied good paying jobs.

Fact: People are starving in Africa.
Fact: Regardless of WHY people are starving in Africa, there is too little food available to those people.

It’s no different than buying and selling. If you buy too much and/or sell too little, you end up bankrupt or in debt.

 

[buffalo]

Fact: People are starving in Africa.
Fact: Regardless of WHY people are starving in Africa, there is too little food available to those people.

It’s no different than buying and selling. If you buy too much and/or sell too little, you end up bankrupt or in debt.

Modern agricultural practices are being brought to Africa. They are doing very well with it.

 

[Neildown]

Modern agricultural practices are being brought to Africa. They are doing very well with it.

If they’re doing good now, then great. I’m just trying to illustrate the concept of an over-extended population. Even though Africa’s population isn’t technically “overextended” there is/was less food than could sustain the people. We would run into the same sort of situation if we overstepped our capability to produce and distribute food. With peoples and/or governments that allow a lot inefficiency in such matters, such a thing is much closer a possibility.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

If they’re doing good now, then great. I’m just trying to illustrate the concept of an over-extended population. Even though Africa’s population isn’t technically “overextended” there is/was less food than could sustain the people. We would run into the same sort of situation if we overstepped our capability to produce and distribute food. With peoples and/or governments that allow a lot inefficiency in such matters, such a thing is much closer a possibility.

But it’s not correct to say that it’s overpopulated. Overpopulation assumes that the land cannot handle the people that are there. The land certainly can handle it. The problem is government policy, and that cannot be an “overpopulation” problem.

To use an example, Russia lost million of people with Stalin’s “collectivization” of the farms. The problem there, of course, was not overpopulation, but government policy. The same principle holds with Africa.

 

[Neildown]

But it’s not correct to say that it’s overpopulated. Overpopulation assumes that the land cannot handle the people that are there. The land certainly can handle it. The problem is government policy, and that cannot be an “overpopulation” problem.

To use an example, Russia lost million of people with Stalin’s “collectivization” of the farms. The problem there, of course, was not overpopulation, but government policy. The same principle holds with Africa.

If the concept is so easily lost then there is no point in my illustrating any further.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

No, it isn’t. You’re just interpreting to your own belief system. Now you’re bringing the Church into it!

 

[Neildown]

No, it isn’t. You’re just interpreting to your own belief system. Now you’re bringing the Church into it!

Now you’re just playing with my head…

 

[Ridgerunner]

You make interesting points, but how much of a problem really is a dwindling population? Can you provide some evidence of how in several decades we will be destroyed by this problem?

One small example.

A few years ago, a small town in my state found that its sewer system no longer worked. Engineers determined that the town, which had been losing population, was not sending enough water through the system to make it work anymore.

Also, in the last several years, cities have discovered that if there is not enough water flow through the fresh water systems, bacteria will proliferate in them. So, in areas where there is not sufficient water usage, they have to flush the system out from time to time. When, in driving through a city, you see fire hydrants open for hours at a time, that’s usually what they’re doing.

Detroit, I’m informed, has a problem with underpopulation in places. Abandoned houses become havens for vermin, criminals and the insane, making life unliveable for those who remain in such areas, and accelerating abandonment.

Infrastructure in cities presumes a certain number of people being served. Utilities of all kinds are interconnected. If an area becomes severely underpopulated, the utilities, streets, etc, have to be maintained anyway, thus stretching the resources of fewer and fewer people.

Imagine a metro area in which the population is halved. Property values, of course, would plummet. If there were “free” abandoned houses everywhere, why buy one? Wild animals and human assailants would rule the night.

The population of ancient Rome fell from about one million to about 40,000 in a relatively short time, historically speaking. Infrastructure (aqueducts, drainage systems) fell apart, and disease proliferated among the remaining population. Thieves and assassins ruled parts of the ruins and nearly all the countryside because the more civilized parts of the populace were simply too small to prevent it.

After the Black Death, the countryside in many places was so wild that if highwaymen didn’t kill you, wild animals were likely to do it.

Imagine driving through a largely abandoned countryside. One would not want to have a flat tire after dark. In 1776, the population of the U.S. was spread over a thin slice of coastline. The rest was a howling wilderness. Now, of course, people have spread throughout the country. Again reduce the population significantly, and whole areas would have to be abandoned again, simply because they could not be maintained or policed.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Man is uniquely different than all other creatures on earth. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Meaning we have a part in His divinity, it’s why we have the capacity for thought and reason and why we are stewards of all other creatures. Ever wonder why man even though he is the smartest of all creatures, takes the longest to be independent of his mother and father? Ever wonder why men hormonally change and their testosterone drops significantly right before his wife gives birth? Their wife secretes a hormone through her skin that drops testosterone levels by a third. God in all His wisdom figured that the baby stands a better chance at survival if it has both a mother and a father around at birth.

It should be noted that Christ lived simply. Modern man’s highly materialistic, high-resource-intensive has nothing to do with manner in which Christ lived.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

One small example.

A few years ago, a small town in my state found that its sewer system no longer worked. Engineers determined that the town, which had been losing population, was not sending enough water through the system to make it work anymore.

Also, in the last several years, cities have discovered that if there is not enough water flow through the fresh water systems, bacteria will proliferate in them. So, in areas where there is not sufficient water usage, they have to flush the system out from time to time. When, in driving through a city, you see fire hydrants open for hours at a time, that’s usually what they’re doing.

Detroit, I’m informed, has a problem with underpopulation in places. Abandoned houses become havens for vermin, criminals and the insane, making life unliveable for those who remain in such areas, and accelerating abandonment.

Infrastructure in cities presumes a certain number of people being served. Utilities of all kinds are interconnected. If an area becomes severely underpopulated, the utilities, streets, etc, have to be maintained anyway, thus stretching the resources of fewer and fewer people.

Imagine a metro area in which the population is halved. Property values, of course, would plummet. If there were “free” abandoned houses everywhere, why buy one? Wild animals and human assailants would rule the night.

The population of ancient Rome fell from about one million to about 40,000 in a relatively short time, historically speaking. Infrastructure (aqueducts, drainage systems) fell apart, and disease proliferated among the remaining population. Thieves and assassins ruled parts of the ruins and nearly all the countryside because the more civilized parts of the populace were simply too small to prevent it.

After the Black Death, the countryside in many places was so wild that if highwaymen didn’t kill you, wild animals were likely to do it.

Imagine driving through a largely abandoned countryside. One would not want to have a flat tire after dark. In 1776, the population of the U.S. was spread over a thin slice of coastline. The rest was a howling wilderness. Now, of course, people have spread throughout the country. Again reduce the population significantly, and whole areas would have to be abandoned again, simply because they could not be maintained or policed.

The above is less expensive than the opposite is: Rapidly expanding. Reducing the size of a society is a one time event. Do it and it’s done. Increasing the size not only requires the large capital investment, but ongoing maintenance. It’s much cheaper to destroy and reduce than to expand.

The bigger problem, IMHO, is that people don’t like to adapt to changing conditions. If the solution to a problem was also to increase, then a problem that requires decrease is foreign to them and offense to their conscience.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The above is less expensive than the opposite is: Rapidly expanding. Reducing the size of a society is a one time event. Do it and it’s done. Increasing the size not only requires the large capital investment, but ongoing maintenance. It’s much cheaper to destroy and reduce than to expand.

The bigger problem, IMHO, is that people don’t like to adapt to changing conditions. If the solution to a problem was also to increase, then a problem that requires decrease is foreign to them and offense to their conscience.

I don’t think you can say that depopulation is cheaper than increasing population. Certainly, while Rome’s population increased, so did its wealth and its infrastructure. Because of the increasing prosperity, it could afford monumental works. Same with Byzantium. Same with the U.S. from its founding to now. Depopulation in the first two led to decay in every way, including economically; something we see in Detroit.

People create infrastructure. Granted, in many countries it doesn’t happen, or doesn’t happen adequately, because the people are kept impoverished by governments that steal everything and stifle enterprise in every way. Two very good examples of that, historically, are Russia under the Tatar yoke and the Middle East under the Turks. Both were prosperous until they were stolen blind over a long period of time.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t think you can say that depopulation is cheaper than increasing population. Certainly, while Rome’s population increased, so did its wealth and its infrastructure. Because of the increasing prosperity, it could afford monumental works. Same with Byzantium. Same with the U.S. from its founding to now. Depopulation in the first two led to decay in every way, including economically; something we see in Detroit.

People create infrastructure. Granted, in many countries it doesn’t happen, or doesn’t happen adequately, because the people are kept impoverished by governments that steal everything and stifle enterprise in every way. Two very good examples of that, historically, are Russia under the Tatar yoke and the Middle East under the Turks. Both were prosperous until they were stolen blind over a long period of time.

You’re assuming that the current high non-renewable-resource-intensive, materialistic lifestyle as the base line. That’s not a reasonable assumption.