Is the world overpopulated?

[Ridgerunner]

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

I’m not sure what you are saying. If you’re saying increasing population is destructive because of the use of resources to maintain it, I am not at all persuaded of that. Mankind has a way of finding alternatives. Who would have supposed, 150 years ago, that expensive tooled metal parts could be replaced by plastic parts in many things? I recall reading that toward the end of the 19th century environmental disaster loomed because fully 1/3 of all agricultural production in the U.S. went to feed horses, and cities were fetid sewers because of all the horses. But of course, the predicted disasters didn’t happen because alternatives were found.

Early cars were enormously heavy relative to their horsepower and function because everything in them was made of heavy cast iron or steel or wood. Now, they’re much lighter relative to horsepower because of the use of lighter materials, many of which are much easier to make.

And just a few years ago, everyone was going on about “peak oil” and how it was about to run out. But, of course, a lot has been found since then and new ways of extraction have been developed. And there are still areas where nobody has even explored to any degree.

Now, I’ll agree that oftentimes people are excessively materialistic. But I am not convinced all material blessings are excessive. I, for example, definitely don’t have to have a microwave oven. But it saves my wife and me a great deal of time, uses a lot less energy than alternatives, and does the job. Wanting a microwave oven is “materialistic”, but what’s wrong with having one if I don’t have to cheat or steal to get one?

I recall reading that the very first microwave ovens cost $50,000. Now you can get them for next to nothing at sales. I see nothing wrong with that. But it’s precisely because enough people wanted them that people devised ways of making them so cheap nearly everybody in the U.S. has one. Wanting one was “materialistic” then, just as it is now, but it’s hard to see any moral fault in what the desire for them did for everyone.

 

[Monkey1976]

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

Using the current figures for world population (~7 billion) and agricultural land (4.8 million km^2), each person could currently have over 64,000 square feet of land for food production. With no change in the amount of land available for agriculture, the world could sustain a population of over 20 billion and still have room for population growth. The problem is food distribution, not production.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

And just a few years ago, everyone was going on about “peak oil” and how it was about to run out. But, of course, a lot has been found since then and new ways of extraction have been developed. And there are still areas where nobody has even explored to any degree.

This is a grave misunderstanding of peak-oil theory. Peak-oil theory doesn’t focus on what happens when oil runs out, but rather what happens prior to it running out. And guess what? It’s happening; that’s not disputable. EROEI is following a downward trend, which is the major point of this theory. A gallon of oil today costs much more energy to extract that it did 50 years ago. The amount does not matter; the amount of energy it takes to extract it is everything. We must use greater and greater amounts of energy to do the same amount of work. There are all sorts of economic consequences that go along with that.

People tend to focus on things like the timing of events, use that to dismiss the entire theory, and utterly miss the big picture.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a grave misunderstanding of peak-oil theory. Peak-oil theory doesn’t focus on what happens when oil runs out, but rather what happens prior to it running out. And guess what? It’s happening; that’s not disputable. EROEI is following a downward trend, which is the major point of this theory. A gallon of oil today costs much more energy to extract that it did 50 years ago. The amount does not matter; the amount of energy it takes to extract it is everything. We must use greater and greater amounts of energy to do the same amount of work. There are all sorts of economic consequences that go along with that.

People tend to focus on things like the timing of events, use that to dismiss the entire theory, and utterly miss the big picture.

Of course it takes more energy to extract it. It used to bubble right out of the ground in Pennsylvania, just like it does today off the coast of California.

Nobody disputes that there is only so much petroleum in the ground. But nobody really knows how much can be extracted or by what method and, to a significant extent, where.

So, in the meantime, the answer is to see the population spiral downward, with all the problems that brings?

I guess that would be true if humans did not have brains enough to figure out what to do next. Personally, I think it more likely that we do than that we do not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Using the current figures for world population (~7 billion) and agricultural land (4.8 million km^2), each person could currently have over 64,000 square feet of land for food production. With no change in the amount of land available for agriculture, the world could sustain a population of over 20 billion and still have room for population growth. The problem is food distribution, not production.

And that, of course, assumes no new developments in production of any kind. As a person who has restored and improved many acres, I know better than that.

 

[Monkey1976]

Of course it takes more energy to extract it. It used to bubble right out of the ground in Pennsylvania, just like it does today off the coast of California.

Nobody disputes that there is only so much petroleum in the ground. But nobody really knows how much can be extracted or by what method and, to a significant extent, where.

So, in the meantime, the answer is to see the population spiral downward, with all the problems that brings?

I guess that would be true if humans did not have brains enough to figure out what to do next. Personally, I think it more likely that we do than that we do not.

A side note about the oil issue: We could do much better by investing in nuclear power - both fission (current technology) and fusion (under development). Petroleum has an energy density of about 46 MJ (megajoules)/kg. Uranium as used in a fission reactor has an energy density of 79.5 million MJ/kg. Deuterium-tritium fuel used in most fusion research reactors has an average energy density of 330 million MJ/kg.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A side note about the oil issue: We could do much better by investing in nuclear power - both fission (current technology) and fusion (under development). Petroleum has an energy density of about 46 MJ (megajoules)/kg. Uranium as used in a fission reactor has an energy density of 79.5 million MJ/kg. Deuterium-tritium fuel used in most fusion research reactors has an average energy density of 330 million MJ/kg.

No argument from me on this. I believe this country and other countries should do all they reasonably can to aid the efforts of human beings through energy. Lots of ways to do that.

 

[Beloved2010]

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.

Thank you for that example. I am en engineer and design infrastructure, but in Houston we are not experiencing that problem, so I have not been aware of it. This really speaks to my heart. A growing population is certainly a good problem to have because more people are being born, which means more blessings. However, with a continually dwindling population this will always be this problem.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The REAL consequences to the idea of overpopulation: thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

Any Catholic who supports this idea should read this article and get back to me.

 

[catholictiger]

I personally believe that we aren’t overpopulated if we could spread resources effectively we could feed everyone in the world provide a shelter for everyone in the world and people would live effectively. But the problem is in our world the balance is way off the 1% control the majority of the resources while the 99% only control some and the poor in the world barely have anything.

we don’t have a resource shortage or to many people we have a resource distribution problem.

Just think about it people in the united states waste food, are obese, and can eat processed foods for every meal. While in 3rd world countries kids sometimes have to go through garbage just to find something to eat.

One real interesting thing that happens when you visit the third world and you are from the first world you notice that you are taller then everyone. Why because you had proper nutrition in the first world and the third world didn’t.

please don’t peg me as a liberal either, I’m not calling for communist change or anything or even more liberal change. I believe its up to the people to fix this problem not so much the government. All I’m trying to do is speak to the reality of our resource problem.

 

[Brendan]

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

Actually, I got to western Tanzania every year to install computers in school in the local diocese there. I’ve already spent LOTS of time in areas where the average annual income for a family is about $500

The bishop there ( whom I stay with and am now good friends with) is very keen on large families.

Being from there, and living there and running a large diocese there, I would think that Bishop Minde knows more about the situation in Africa than you do.

As would God, and He keeps giving them the gift of children

And lest you think I am making it up on the spot, here are some past threads where I have talked about it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9897927&highlight=tanzania#post9897927

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9676630&highlight=tanzania#post9676630

So yea, I’ve been there, I’ve worked with some of the poorest people on the planet. And they LOVE kids!!

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

Which is a human concept. God, being perfect, cannot give ‘too much’ of anything. It will always be given in the right amounts at the right time. All we have to do is accept.

 

[Neildown]

Actually, I got to western Tanzania every year to install computers in school in the local diocese there. I’ve already spent LOTS of time in areas where the average annual income for a family is about $500

The bishop there ( whom I stay with and am now good friends with) is very keen on large families.

Being from there, and living there and running a large diocese there, I would think that Bishop Minde knows more about the situation in Africa than you do.

As would God, and He keeps giving them the gift of children

And lest you think I am making it up on the spot, here are some past threads where I have talked about it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9897927&highlight=tanzania#post9897927

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9676630&highlight=tanzania#post9676630

So yea, I’ve been there, I’ve worked with some of the poorest people on the planet. And they LOVE kids!!

Which is a human concept. God, being perfect, cannot give ‘too much’ of anything. It will always be given in the right amounts at the right time. All we have to do is accept.

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?

 

[Brendan]

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?

That would be correct. They live in mud brick huts (even the priests actually) and most are subsitance farmers. But food is grown and people eat. Rice, mangos, bananas,nuts and eggs mostly. With the occasional chicken thrown in (after it’s laying days are over).

One parish did give us a goat as a thank you gift for setting up their school with computers. That was dinner at the ‘going away’ party

And food will be there, because God provides that as well (Matt 6). But there are cases in other parts of Africa when humans come in and take it, or block it from being sold to you ( as is the real cause of these famines in Africa).

But that is not the fault of God, nor does it lessen the value of the gifts He offers.

 

[Neildown]

And food will be there, because God provides that as well (Matt 6). But there are cases in other parts of Africa when humans come in and take it, or block it from being sold to you ( as is the real cause of these famines in Africa).

But that is not the fault of God, nor does it lessen the value of the gifts He offers.

Right, which I don’t dispute in any way. If you have enough food to feed a population then you’re fine. People who don’t have enough food (in any case, it’s too much consumption with too little production/distribution) starve.

I don’t believe the world is going to be “over” populated for quite some time, nor do I think we need to decrease the population - which would be terrible on multiple levels. I do think that people, globally, will eventually have to start keeping their reproductive rates down though, so as to cap human expansion without over-extending ourselves. Common sense would tell us that eventually it will become a problem, especially if we over-extend ourselves in comparison with our resources and our environment.

Of course, most of the world will probably want to accomplish that via sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, and contraception.

And all of this, of course, is assuming that the Second Coming doesn’t happen prior (or during?]). I’m personally of the opinion that that may not be too far off though, what with the global economic crisis looming. Granted nearly every generation has had that suspicion, things aren’t looking very good.

 

[Brendan]

Right, which I don’t dispute in any way. If you have enough food to feed a population then you’re fine. People who don’t have enough food (in any case, it’s too much consumption with too little production/distribution) starve. .

The best part of that is, as I mentioned, we have God’s guarantee that there will be enough food, or more specifically, that He will provide us with the ability to generate enough food.

( Matthew 6:25-34)

Like all things, when a Gift from God is given, such as food, children, it must be accepted. To do otherwise is a loss for us. It means that we will be worse off because of the lack of this gift.

 

[Kevin_B]

I agree the world is not overpopulated now. However, one of the following must be true:

1. the earth can support an infinite amount of humans

or

1. at some point, our population must cease to grow

There is no other alternative. If our population continues to grow forever, there will, eventually, be an infinite amount of people on earth. Since it is absurd to think the earth can support an infinite amount of people, we must agree that, at some point in the future, even if it is thousands of years from now, the human population must cease to increase.

The church seems to be under the assumption that this is not the case, and that the human population can increase indefinitely. Since this will, eventually, lead to an infinite population, which obviously cannot be supported, the only logical conclusion is that the church is wrong. The only way I could see otherwise is if they agreed that there could possibly be a scenario, albeit far in the future, where the human population can no longer grow.

 

[Neildown]

I agree the world is not overpopulated now. However, one of the following must be true:

1. the earth can support an infinite amount of humans

or

1. at some point, our population must cease to grow

There is no other alternative. If our population continues to grow forever, there will, eventually, be an infinite amount of people on earth. Since it is absurd to think the earth can support an infinite amount of people, we must agree that, at some point in the future, even if it is thousands of years from now, the human population must cease to increase.

The church seems to be under the assumption that this is not the case, and that the human population can increase indefinitely. Since this will, eventually, lead to an infinite population, which obviously cannot be supported, the only logical conclusion is that the church is wrong. The only way I could see otherwise is if they agreed that there could possibly be a scenario, albeit far in the future, where the human population can no longer grow.

I agree with you but I think you went a little overboard. Where does the Church state that we have to increase our numbers beyond our ability to support them?

 

[Brendan]

I
The church seems to be under the assumption that this is not the case, and that the human population can increase indefinitely. Since this will, eventually, lead to an infinite population, which obviously cannot be supported, the only logical conclusion is that the church is wrong. The only way I could see otherwise is if they agreed that there could possibly be a scenario, albeit far in the future, where the human population can no longer grow.

Your error is that you assume that humans alone are responsible for determining the maximum number of people on Earth.

That, in fact, is determined by God. Humans assist in the process, but the creation of the soul is done by God, and Him alone.

There can be no more people on the Earth than God desires there to be. Their can be fewer, due to contraception, abortion, murder and war. But there can NEVER be more people created than God desires to create.

 

[Monkey1976]

I agree the world is not overpopulated now. However, one of the following must be true:

1. the earth can support an infinite amount of humans

or

1. at some point, our population must cease to grow

There is no other alternative. If our population continues to grow forever, there will, eventually, be an infinite amount of people on earth. Since it is absurd to think the earth can support an infinite amount of people, we must agree that, at some point in the future, even if it is thousands of years from now, the human population must cease to increase.

The church seems to be under the assumption that this is not the case, and that the human population can increase indefinitely. Since this will, eventually, lead to an infinite population, which obviously cannot be supported, the only logical conclusion is that the church is wrong. The only way I could see otherwise is if they agreed that there could possibly be a scenario, albeit far in the future, where the human population can no longer grow.

What limits the human population to earth? People estimate that this planet could support anything between 10 billion and 1 trillion humans. NASA estimates that there are between 2 and 100 billion earthlike planets in our galaxy alone. The only thing keeping us from colonizing these worlds is the will to do it, so there really is no practical upper limit to the total population of humans.

 

[Neildown]

What limits the human population to earth? People estimate that this planet could support anything between 10 billion and 1 trillion humans. NASA estimates that there are between 2 and 100 billion earthlike planets in our galaxy alone. The only thing keeping us from colonizing these worlds is the will to do it, so there really is no practical upper limit to the total population of humans.

In the event that we could populate other planets, then yes we could probably expand as much as we wanted. Technological advances are becoming so common and fast-paced that it’s not too far off to suppose that will become an option some day. For all we know, that might be a reason why God made the universe so huge.