Overpopulated

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I think we all agree it is not currently, but it begs the question, eventually it will be and does the bible ever speak about this?

I believe I heard once the number that the earth could viably support is roughly 12-15 billion, we are currently around 7.5 billion, so eventually we do reach this number…then what?

Surely God has a plan for this, but Im also sure before we even get close to that number, the secular world will begin considering their own plans to deal with this and we can be sure, it will not be a good thing! I can imagine a world where people are ‘interviewed’ in order to see if they are a contributing member of society and are ‘acceptable’

GEEZ, this sounds like a bad horror movie the more I think about it LOL

Then again, by the time we reach that population amount, we will probably have the ability to live on other planets, so may be a moot issue by then…?
The reality of life and history is that if an area becomes overpopulated, natural forces will restore the balance. There will be emigration, war, famine and disease until a balance is restored.

Why would we be so arrogant to think that as moderns we are exempt from these historical truths?

God Bless
 
What that above quote means is that the UK is living beyond it’s means. The population is still growing and the government refuses to tackle the issue of overpopulation of this small island. Now whilst we have the ability to import energy and food stuffs from other countries this problem is hidden from the vast majority of people who take supermarkets for granted.

I’d like to write more but I don’t have time as I have to go to work maybe I’ll write a longer post when I return this evening.
Are you describing a lack of resources or a lack of resource management?

Seems to me as soon as you used the phrase “the government refuses…” you have properly placed the issue as one of mismanagement.
 
Yes that’s right bury your head in the sand…
It is understandable that people in a densely populated area consider overpopulation.

But traveling about in the states, there are many areas where one can travel for quite some time without ever seeing another human being.

Even if we are to believe the Island is beyond its means, that really means nothing given that food can (and is) shipped around the world.

I cannot produce the food on my own patch of soil I lie on. Does that mean it is overpopulated? No, it simply means I have to go elsewhere to purchase the food.

And that same logic applies to larger areas.
 
The science is already there, it’s just that people are too stubborn to comprehend it. We prefer our biases to the evidence. The evidence is that there are three naturally occurring population types in regards to demographics and a fourth new / artificial one.
  1. Pre-industrial agrarian societies. High fertility rates, high death rates, low population growth rates.
  2. Transitional societies. Recently introduced industry, sanitation and education. High fertility rates (though falling), much reduced death rates, high population growth rate.
  3. Post transitional industrial / urbanized societies. Low fertility rates, low death rates, low to no population growth rates.
The above three are widely recognized demographic stages that have been observed well BEFORE the advent of the pill or latex. That’s right, wealthy urbanites have had small families right from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Seems to be the nature of the beast.

Population alarmists typically look at a single snapshot of current fertility trends and assume those trends are permanent, then panic after projecting out the numbers a century or two. But history already shows that it doesn’t work that way. The rapid global population growth of the last century is the direct result of most of Earth being in demographic stage 2 simultaneously. Most nations are already nearing the end of that stage and ALL first world nations are in stage 3 or later (more on that in a minute).

The reason this occurs is that urban living innately is harder on big families than agricultural living was. Humans, being rational creatures, tend to react to those circumstances by having smaller families in urbanized conditions. Contrary to Sandra Fluke propaganda, people have been able to prevent pregnancy long before free OR paid contraception came along. Humans are mammals and make symptoms of fertility. Catholics like to imagine we invented NFP recently, but it’s really just a scientific veneer on old fashioned ag husbandry.

What artificial contraception has done is to disconnect sex psychologically from the idea of children in ways that is literally killing human civilization. When you had to discipline your sexual urges to avoid pregnancy, the sex drive remained coupled to procreation and stage 3 urban replacement fertility resulted. But every single nation on earth that has reached stage 3 and then adopted legal, accessible and respectable contraception now has a fertility rate dramatically below replacement rate. Worse, the ‘gospel’ of contraception is being aggressively pushed in the stage 2 nations such that many of them have skipped stage 3 altogether and gone directly to this anti-human stage 4. No country that has reached this “stage 4” has EVER returned back to a stable, years long native replacement fertility rate.

We’ve nothing to fear from “over-population.” The long term demographic trends today point more towards perpetual population decline. To be sure, we still have a few more years of increases riding the last of the stage 2 waves. But from there, it’s nothing but downhill unless we dramatically reform our understanding of what human sexuality is and what it is for.

Unless there is a major culture change, Earth will never reach 10 billion people. We’ll peak somewhere around 9B and decline from there until / unless there is a major civilizational change. Some people relish the idea of fewer humans, but they aren’t thinking it through. Subreplacement fertility means your taxes will be increased to pay for more elderly dependents, your fuel taxes will be increased so that fewer users must pay for the same number of road miles, real estate values will decline as supply exceeds demand and fewer consumers reduce economic demand across the spectrum. Sounds great, huh? Higher taxes, lower pay, deflation. “Not with a bang, but a whimper.”

P.S. The example of the “overpopulated” UK is absurd. The UK was the dominant global power in the memory of some still alive today. As such, the entire nation has some characteristics of a city. You can’t prove that Los Angeles is “overpopulated” because it can’t grow enough of it’s own food inside city limits. That’s just the nature of a city. The UK is merely still enjoying the after-effects of being an imperial power with a global reach. But you haven’t had native population increases in years because you’re terminally in stage 4. The only upward pressure is via immigration. That only lasts as long as there are stage 2 nations to provide immigrants.
 
Thank you, manualman, that was extremely insightful and informative. Do you have any links to citations with studies or statistics?
 
Unless there is a major culture change, Earth will never reach 10 billion people. We’ll peak somewhere around 9B and decline from there until / unless there is a major civilizational change.
Like that’s a bad thing. Earth is limited.
Some people relish the idea of fewer humans, but they aren’t thinking it through. Subreplacement fertility means your taxes will be increased to pay for more elderly dependents,
I’m fine with that. There were enough productivity gains in the last 50 years.
your fuel taxes will be increased so that fewer users must pay for the same number of road miles,
Why pay for oversized infrastructure which the reduced population won’t need anyway? Scale it back according to real needs.
real estate values will decline as supply exceeds demand
Not a bad thing either. Where I live, the main obstacle to young people procreating is the prohibitive real estate cost. Cut it, and they will start reproducing.
and fewer consumers reduce economic demand across the spectrum.
And this is only a bad thing if you have a debt-based economy which must grow infinitely to avoid bankrupcy.
Sounds great, huh? Higher taxes, lower pay, deflation. “Not with a bang, but a whimper.”
Well, I’ll gladly take that, because the alternative is nuclear war over natural resources.
P.S. The example of the “overpopulated” UK is absurd. The UK was the dominant global power in the memory of some still alive today. As such, the entire nation has some characteristics of a city. You can’t prove that Los Angeles is “overpopulated” because it can’t grow enough of it’s own food inside city limits. That’s just the nature of a city. The UK is merely still enjoying the after-effects of being an imperial power with a global reach.
UK is unsustainable in the long run.

In the past, the UK would buy (or rob) raw material (e.g. cotton) from India, send it to UK, where UK-based industry would make it into a product (e.g. clothes) and sell it back to India, while producing a hefty profit.

After the British empire fell, the Indians started producing clothes themselves, undercutting UK industry. However, the UK has already moved to different model – instead of having its own industry, it provides financial services (i.e. capital) for building Indian clothes industry. But this will only work until the Indian economy grows enough that it can produce the capital it needs, and will no longer have to rely on UK for that.

In short, when the debt-based economic system collapses, the UK will collapse as well. The debt-based economic system in turn must collapse before the end of century due to several factors, one of them being demographic changes. Once that happens, the UK will be unable to feed its population.

In that sense, the UK is overpopulated.
 
Some of my claims are easily verified at the CIA world factbook. Web search “CIA total fertility rate.” TFR is the overall average number of children women have in their lifetime. 2.1 is the break even replacement rate. That website will show you the TFR of every significant country on earth. Peruse it, it’s amazing. NONE of the first world nations have enough babies to replace themselves anymore (Israel is an exception, but not really since the high TFRs are mostly in the Islamic and ultra-orthodox populations which have very specific cultural/religious reasons. But the TFR in Tel Aviv isn’t much different than Chicago).

Stages 1-3 you can read about in any demography textbook or at the UN population division website.

Stage 4 is my own hypothesis based on reading the UN research. A dirty secret buried in the fine print of the UN future population projections is the amazing, magical assumption that TFR will rebound to 2.1 in post-industrial nations after a time of sub-replacement even though such an effect has never been observed in history (The actual record data suggests Stage 4 stabilization at 1.5 TFR). They literally have ZERO basis for the assumption in their models, yet they stick to it in defiance of all empirical data. So far, they are simply ignoring “Stage 4”, possibly because predicting indefinite population expansion is good for PR, budget allocations and the anti-human sentiments that drive the UN contraception mania. Some of the most honest demographers admit that causes of TFR changes simply aren’t well enough understood to use for projections much further than 50 years or so, but even that is buried pretty deep in fine print.

Beware, the reading gets addictive when you realize how thoroughly we’ve been lied to in our modern “education” about global population issues.
 
In short, when the debt-based economic system collapses, the UK will collapse as well. The debt-based economic system in turn must collapse before the end of century due to several factors, one of them being demographic changes. Once that happens, the UK will be unable to feed its population.

In that sense, the UK is overpopulated.
Incomplete analysis. That Indian economic transition takes longer than you imagine. Meanwhile, the UK TFR is at 1.3 and holding, meaning that its native population has already been declining for years (total population grows from immigration). Immigrants today inculturate far less than they used to, meaning that in the future when economic prospects there decline, emigration will not be an unattractive option. After all, if you’re third generation Indian-English and still speak the language of your ancestors, why not move there when the pay gets better? In short, their population self-adjusts based on the economic climate. It’s not 1850 anymore. Nations aren’t isolated and need not strive to have the capability to be entirely self-contained. If the UK is disproportionately urban, it will need to import food. No biggie, cities ALWAYS have to import food from outside city limits.

As for reducing infrastructure to fit reducing population, go visit Detroit some time to see how well that works. (I’m a civil engineer. Trust me, infrastructure is not readily downsizable on a pro-rated basis. Once it exists, you either maintain it or it collapses en masse. Your interstate highways aren’t still 80% of their usefulness when 20% of the bridges collapse.)

As for productivity gains offsetting burgeoning tax burden, go ask the Japanese how that’s going for them. They’re Exhibit A of how global aging will be in the future. They’ve been economically moribund for over a decade now in spite of going into their aging problem with a work ethic that makes the Germans look like sluggards.

The precedents for this are so long ago that we’ve forgotten. The ancient Greeks and Romans did this to themselves. Fortunately there were other cultures to step in and take over. Modern western culture is so pervasive and engulfing that few cultures can stand up against it. Makes me wonder if the muslims will be the only ones left standing after we die out. That’s if they don’t all kill each other first!

And with that cheery thought, I need a weekend…
 
I firmly believe in overpopulation and lack of food for everybody. My fridge is always empty and my teenage son is always with his head in it, there is no room for any other family member to access the empty fridge. 😃
 
I’m worried about overpopulation just as much as I’m worried about losing my tin foil hat. 😛
You have a tin foil hat ?
I had an Aluminium foil hat.... Had it for years and years..... Wish I could but another one.
 
Incomplete analysis. That Indian economic transition takes longer than you imagine. Meanwhile, the UK TFR is at 1.3 and holding, meaning that its native population has already been declining for years (total population grows from immigration). Immigrants today inculturate far less than they used to, meaning that in the future when economic prospects there decline, emigration will not be an unattractive option. After all, if you’re third generation Indian-English and still speak the language of your ancestors, why not move there when the pay gets better? In short, their population self-adjusts based on the economic climate. It’s not 1850 anymore. Nations aren’t isolated and need not strive to have the capability to be entirely self-contained. If the UK is disproportionately urban, it will need to import food. No biggie, cities ALWAYS have to import food from outside city limits.

As for reducing infrastructure to fit reducing population, go visit Detroit some time to see how well that works. (I’m a civil engineer. Trust me, infrastructure is not readily downsizable on a pro-rated basis. Once it exists, you either maintain it or it collapses en masse. Your interstate highways aren’t still 80% of their usefulness when 20% of the bridges collapse.)

As for productivity gains offsetting burgeoning tax burden, go ask the Japanese how that’s going for them. They’re Exhibit A of how global aging will be in the future. They’ve been economically moribund for over a decade now in spite of going into their aging problem with a work ethic that makes the Germans look like sluggards.

The precedents for this are so long ago that we’ve forgotten. The ancient Greeks and Romans did this to themselves. Fortunately there were other cultures to step in and take over. Modern western culture is so pervasive and engulfing that few cultures can stand up against it. Makes me wonder if the muslims will be the only ones left standing after we die out. That’s if they don’t all kill each other first!

And with that cheery thought, I need a weekend…
All great civilizations eventually fall, history shows us this, no matter how powerful they may be at a given point. I think we are in the beginning stages of a modern fall.

However I dont think another current culture will step in and take over, most likely IMO, an entirely new culture will be born out of our ashes.
 
How is the world overpopulated if you consider the following
Example: If you put all 7 billion Earth Inhabitants in the State of Alaska,
each person would have an average of 2,271.60 square feet of land.
That area would be large enough to build a 4 bedroom house
for each of the World’s 7 billion inhabitants!
overpopulationmyth.com

There is an increasing problem of underpopulation, not overpopulation as half the world has a fertility rate below long term replacement level.

Raj Krishna, Indian economist, has said India could provide the whole world’s food supply by increasing crop yields.
The U.N. notes that fertility in less developed countries is expected to fall from 2.75 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050, a figure that puts births below replacement levels of 2.1 children per woman. Least developed countries will likely see their fertility rate decline from 4.63 children per woman to 2.50 children per woman.
news.mongabay.com/2007/0313-population.html
 
Hi manualman,

Your argumentation is self-contradictory.

One one had, you say that the “demographic winter” is caused by artificial birth control and induced abortion – leading to TFR of 1.3 in the developed world. On the other hand, you say yourself that urban societies had a low TFR even before artificial contraception was invented. Then you point out that UK (which has low TFR among native population) resembles a one big city. Therefore, by your own argument, below-replacement TFR in UK (and by extension in the rest of the developed world) is caused by societal development and urbanization, and not contraceptives.

Yes, I agree that Japan is a good model of what will happen to most of the developed world over the last 50 years. However, it should be noted that the demographic crisis in Japan is not caused by contraceptives – it is caused by lack of sex. See: theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

Catholic’s obsession with contraceptives over the 40 years has blinded them to a real problem, which is that today’s socioeconomic system economically punishes people for having children. How they are avoiding having children is secondary.

Further, your argument that a “Stage 4” society is unrecoverable is based on assuming that the present socioeconomic system – which is ultimately responsible for creating a “Stage 4” society – is eternal. This is simply not true. As I said, the chances of modern capitalism persisting past 2100 are virtually nil (even chances of it persisting past 2050 are not great). Once the present model is abandoned, all bets are off.

There is also a fundamental difference between Japan and UK. Japan is ethnically homogenous, while UK is not (due to extremely short-sightedpolicy attempting to compensate low TFR with immigration, instead of trying to deal with low TFR directly). When the present economic system crashes (and it must crash before 2100 due to several factors), there is very high chance that UK will sink into a civil war. Japan, at worst, will experience a popular revolution.
 
As for reducing infrastructure to fit reducing population, go visit Detroit some time to see how well that works. (I’m a civil engineer. Trust me, infrastructure is not readily downsizable on a pro-rated basis. Once it exists, you either maintain it or it collapses en masse. Your interstate highways aren’t still 80% of their usefulness when 20% of the bridges collapse.)
You just do what Poland has done with railways in 1990s. You stop maintaining anything except for the main routes and let the rest fall apart. Then you just expect people to deal with it.
As for productivity gains offsetting burgeoning tax burden, go ask the Japanese how that’s going for them. They’re Exhibit A of how global aging will be in the future. They’ve been economically moribund for over a decade now in spite of going into their aging problem with a work ethic that makes the Germans look like sluggards.
Are the Japanese starving? No. Stagnation? Big deal. It’s not a real problem, it’s a problem for the economic system based on virtual money. The era of eternal growth is over, deal with it.

The Catholic school of population control basically argues that every problem (including overpopulation) can be solved by throwing enough people at it. It forgets that feeding these people, educating them, and finally equipping them with tools to do anything takes energy. And that it takes energy to make energy.

But energy production per capita peaked in 1970s. EROI of fossil fuels – the ratio of energy in the fuel to the energy needed to extract and process the fuel – is going down. Sharply. In 1990, US oil imports had EROI of 35 – 35 barrels of usable oil required 1 barrel of oil for extraction, processing and transportation. In 2005, the ratio was 18. In 2007, it was 12. The newest darling of the fossil fuel industry – Alberta tar sands – has EROI of 3.

This, by the way, is less then half of what you can achieve will solar cells (6-7).

The entire human society must be restructured to operate at much lower energy use then we are used to. This is problem enough even with no increase in population.

Unless you are fine with having 30 billion people all living in conditions like today’s Calicut.
 
So, weller2, you have given compelling arguments for controlling the population. Do you consider these good solutions to overpopulation: widespread abortion, contraception, and homosexuality, euthanasia, the death penalty, unjust wars? Do you feel that some or all of these options should be mandated by governments in the future, like China’s rousingly successful One Child policy? How about forced sterilization, and what groups should we apply this to first? The mentally feeble? Should people pass a test before they are allowed to reproduce? How should we phase in euthanasia, should we start with the elderly and disabled children? What is the strategy for expanding this to able-bodied youth? Should it be glamorized like abortion is now, where we have special clinics which are powered by government funding and international “charitable” organizations that export education in order to desensitize people to the stigma of death? What targets would you select for nuclear bombs to be detonated, that would be extremely efficient to wipe whole cities out at once.

I feel that with a little coordinated effort we can really rein in the human population of the Earth in order for cockroaches to take their rightful place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top