Overpopulated

[weller2]

So what exactly is the ‘biocapacity’ of the earth?

Seems it is just a made up word to describe an artificial number people would like to use to claim overpopulation of the earth.

It is not a real number. Nor is it a real word.

See section 3 in this paper: gpiatlantic.org/pdf/ecofoot/pei-ecofoot.pdf in particular page 11 and 13.

Here is a smaller study so the methodology used is easier to follow: ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/37-2/footprint.pdf

 

[weller2]

Yes, weller2, you’ve established that it’s a problem in your opinion. What’s your solution? I have offered you a host of solutions but you have not commented much on them. I would be interested to hear how you would solve overpopulation as you see it, and how those solutions would comport with the Catholic faith.

I’d rather you told me what is the Catholic solution to the problem.

Except for “there is no problem” because that line is clearly false.

 

[Elizium23]

Okay, so here is a related question. Who gets to determine whether or not there is a problem? And who gets to impose solutions? Let’s suppose the scientific community determines that the world is overpopulated and there is widespread consensus among them that this is true. Does the world accept their word on this? Should individual nations be able to impose regulations to mitigate their own overpopulation? What form should these regulations take? (China’s One Child policy?) Can Churches and ecclesial communities decide for us? What can religious leaders do to regulate births?

I can tell you that if the Catholic Church were to accept the idea that the world was overpopulated, or parts thereof, the correct Catholic response would be to regulate marriages strictly. Reducing the number of marriages would naturally reduce the number of families and births among those who observed the Church’s teachings on sexual morality. Who knows, it may even increase the number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

 

[weller2]

Okay, so here is a related question. Who gets to determine whether or not there is a problem? And who gets to impose solutions? Let’s suppose the scientific community determines that the world is overpopulated and there is widespread consensus among them that this is true. Does the world accept their word on this?

NOTHING in science works on the basis of accepting someone’s word. The whole idea behind modern science is that someone else should be able to replicate your findings independently. That’s why scientists publish methodology. I have linked above to two papers which have calculations of ecological footprint – these papers reference other papers, which describe why things are calculated that way. The whole idea is that you can check that for yourself.

Should individual nations be able to impose regulations to mitigate their own overpopulation? What form should these regulations take? (China’s One Child policy?) Can Churches and ecclesial communities decide for us? What can religious leaders do to regulate births?

That’s the question about policy, not science. Scientists, by definition, do not do policy – that’s the job of politicians (or religious leaders). (And in my experience scientists who try to do politics usually end up being extremely bad politicans.) Scientists can (and should) give recommendations about policy – but that’s where their role ends. In other words, the job of a scientists is to (a) identify the problems, (b) give the society and array of tools for dealing with these problems – but ultimately, it’s not their call to decide which tools should be used and how.

Take China’s one child policy for example. Ignoring moral considerations (as they are difficult to quantify, and hence difficult to analyze within the scientific framework), we need to observe that it was not particularly successful. In addition, it has created a significant gender imbalance. For that reason alone, my view is that this particular approach is a dead end, and should not be repeated.

At the same time, we must observe that all solutions aimed at reducing TFR result in aging of the society which will have serious negative economic and societal effects. My view is that tackling these is easier than tackling resource starvation – although there are people who believe otherwise.

But actually, I have nothing against a world with 10 billion people. Or 30 billion people. Or even 100 billion people, provided that they can all be fed, clothed, and educated without wreaking havoc in Earth’s ecosystem the way this is currently happening. And it isn’t even about the polar bears or cockroaches. It’s about the simple fact that humans are adapted to function within a particular ecosystem – if this ecosystem is destroyed, humans will be gone too.

However, acheving a sustainable economy will require several geniuses with the caliber of Norman Borlaug. The good news is that such geniuses are not that rare. The bad news is that society may not be receptive to their ideas. There is a quite big chance that today’s Borlaugs, instead of doing something productive, spend their lives fighting bureaucratic red tape and patent litigation – because their discoveries would stop someone, somewhere, from making money. Read the BRCA1 story to understand what I’m talking about: forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/04/13/myriad-genetics-ceo-owns-your-genes/

There’s one cardinal sin which has the most potential to destroy humanity today. Catholics seem to believe that this sin is lust. It is not.

It is greed.

 

[vz71]

See section 3 in this paper: gpiatlantic.org/pdf/ecofoot/pei-ecofoot.pdf in particular page 11 and 13.

Here is a smaller study so the methodology used is easier to follow: ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/37-2/footprint.pdf

Took a while to go through it all.
They certainly were thorough. But I am still left with the same problem I asked to begin with.
What exactly it the “biocapacity” of the earth.

I understand what they believe it means, but I do not see anything to indicate what this value is for the entire planet, nor have I seen anything that accounts for future developments.

 

[manualman]

NOTHING in science works on the basis of accepting someone’s word. The whole idea behind modern science is that someone else should be able to replicate your findings independently. That’s why scientists publish methodology. I have linked above to two papers which have calculations of ecological footprint – these papers reference other papers, which describe why things are calculated that way. The whole idea is that you can check that for yourself.

You refute yourself in this one paragraph. EVERYTHING in science works on the basis of accepting someone else’s word. Otherwise, every scientist in the world would still be working out basic mathematical proofs, Newtonian experiments and Tom Edison electrical experiments. The fact is that scientists are expected to build on the academy that preceded them. There are safeguards intended to prevent the academy from accepting blunders as “proven” scientific theory, but this system has a long and checkered history. Even Newtonian physics, useful as it has been, has now long been proved to be an incorrect oversimplification of physics that only applies in certain circumstances (not relativistic velocities).

The sorts of science that you cite in forming your opinions are valid, but are based on the fundamental blunder of static technology and agricultural efficiency assumptions. There simply has never been a period where agricultural efficiency or technological efficiency has remained static. It’s a blunder so dumb that it suggests bad faith on the part of those producing the science!

When you consider the amount of work currently going into research of alternate energy sources, it’s amazing to me that people get gloomy about petroleum estimates. Perhaps it will be fusion, but not necessarily. Science might easily first crack the long and curious mystery of the similarity between magnetism and gravity. We’ve long known how to induce magnetism with electricity. When they figure out how to create artificial gravity, leaving earth orbit will become relatively simply and enormous energy sources await us up there. Point is that we’re not remotely out of tricks to learn yet, so it’s short sighted to the point of dishonesty to project stagnation indefinitely on the energy and ag fronts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The main difference between an inhabitant of India and an inhabitant of the United States is the amount of resources that each of them has available – everything else boils down to that. Resources, in turn, are land. There’s land for food production, land for mining coal, land for dumping waste on so on. Mind that land used by a given coutry does not necessarily have to be in that country, due to global trade. If the UK imports food, for example, then it is using land abroad to feed itself.

The reason that India is able to accommodate the number of people it does is that they live in worse conditions than those in US, so their resource use is low – 0.9 global hectares per capita. For US, this value is 8 global hectares per capita. Now, US economy is known to be extremely wasteful, so let’s take EU (Germany) – the figure there is about 5.

Earth has about 13.4 billion hectares of biologically active surface.

My spreadsheet tells me that India uses 8% of world’s biocapacity, Germany uses 3%, and US uses 19%. Far from overpopulation, right…?

But! Why would people in India always want to live with the conditions they live now? As you have said yourself, they want opportunity. So they will want to develop. And their resource use is going to go up… Say not to US levels (US economy is known to be wasteful), but to German levels. Now, 1.2 billion people at 5 hectares per capita… that’s 45% of world’s biocapacity.

But wait, they will need time to develop, so let’s take projected population figures for 2050 (US - 0.42B, India - 1.6B). If the resource usage does not change, then simple multiplication yields US using 25% of world’s biocapacity. India, with Germany-like economy, would use 60%. So the two, combined, would use 85% of world’s resources for 2 billion people. But wait, we will also have China with its 1.3 billion people… and everyone else of the remaining 8 billion.

So, back to the point I made… Earth can sure accommodate:

• 21 billion people if they live at Bangladeshi levels on average (0.6 per capita)
• 15 billion people if they live at Indian levels on average (0.9 gha per capita)
• 10 billion people if they live at Phillipine levels on average (1.3 gha per capita)

But, it can accommocate only:

• 2.7 billion people if they live at German levels on average (5 gha per capita)
• 1.7 billion people if they live with an economy like the US has (8 gha per capita)

The fundamental assumption underlying your analysis is stated in your first paragraph; that:

“The main difference between an inhabitant of India and an inhabitant of the United States is the amount of resources that each of them has available – everything else boils down to that. Resources, in turn, are land.”

And it’s wrong.

Land is absolutely not all there is to it. Much more depends on the ability of populations to utilize the resources they have properly, the most important being human resources.

So, Zimbabwe, a very rich land agriculturally, can’t feed itself and has a wretched economy, while Singapore and Japan which have virtually no natural resources, but very significant human resources, do quite well.

India does feed itself, even though its use of land is highly inefficient. You leap to the conclusion that India’s farmable area determines its standard of living, which is manifestly untrue. It could (and perhaps someday will) have an economy like that of Japan and still be able to feed itself.

Germany does not feed itself either, and possibly can’t. The U.K. does not, but almost certainly could.

I’m not sure why you say the U.S. is so wasteful. U.S. utilization of petroleum resources as a percentage of the world total, for example, is almost exactly the same as its percentage of the world’s production of goods. The assumption that any given country has .9 or 5 or 8 hectares per capita somehow determines its standard of living, it just an assumption based on nothing. If it were true, then Poland would have a much better economy than Germany. But it doesn’t.

 

[Cricket2]

Is the Earth overpopulated?

No. To think this is to imply that God does not know what He cannot provide for all of us.

The problems with poverty and resources being short are man made and the result of greed and other sins. Better stewardship and concern for others would solve many problems we face today.

 

[catholictiger]

Is the Earth overpopulated?

this question I don’t think perfectly fits the issue. The question isn’t is the earth populated the question should be does the earth have enough resources to sustain the current population? I think it is the case and rather the problem is that there is a disproportionate distribution of resources, in some very poor countries the rich, rebel groups, and other groups, take up all of the resources and don’t let people get their fill. I actually did some research on this issue. While it is a light research project for a english class in college, I found that an increase in population doesn’t necessarily mean more malnutrition, more hungry people, higher death rate, and other hunger related issues. I actually found that sometimes the food situation gets better even while the population increases.

I’ll finish by saying this the debate about overpopulation can be misplaced, many people will try and argue against it by saying that we can fit everyone in texas, but its not a space problem rather it is resource problem. When the earth becomes “overpopulated” we will have outstripped the resources that earth gives us. There is also another economic theory that I can’t remember the name of is that when resources begin to become scars we don’t just run out of them we cut back on its use, while this wouldn’t be good it would force humans to find other resources when we run out of others. For example if we run out of oil we will cut back on its use because it will get very expensive, because of the economic pressure they will try and find other resources to use in order to fix the problem.

 

[catholictiger]

I’d rather you told me what is the Catholic solution to the problem.

Except for “there is no problem” because that line is clearly false.

I don’t believe that the Church gives a solution to the problem. But I do think there is a long term solution that won’t happen overnight but will be a slowly changing trend over many decades

this is how I think we could slow it.

work for economic development of less developed countries. When you look at the data it can be shown that the less developed a country (on average) the higher rate of natural increase. For example Africa has a rate of natural increase of 2.4% and a GNI PPP per capita of about 2000. While North American countries have a rate of .5% and a GNI PPP per capita of 44,000$. There is a lot more data but the simple fact is that normally when a country is poor the natural rate of increase will be higher. This is mainly because the death rate is higher, the life expectancy is lower and because of this they will have more children. If we improve their healthcare system, their education, their food, etc. You will help them develop and eventually when they develop the women will not have as many children.

I know trying to get people live live longer have less people die earlier in life would actually speed up the development but this simply isn’t true when a country develops and people live longer there is less of a need to have multiple children. In Africa you want as many children as possible to increase your chance your kid will be successful in life so that he can help you, to have kids to help you work in the fields, along with other things.

 

[catholictiger]

No. To think this is to imply that God does not know what He cannot provide for all of us.

The problems with poverty and resources being short are man made and the result of greed and other sins. Better stewardship and concern for others would solve many problems we face today.

I don’t like this argument we can’t assume that God would provide for the earth, because the earth isn’t what matters. It is possible that we could outstrip our resources one day, god doesn’t necessitate that this won’t happen.

 

[weller2]

Took a while to go through it all.
They certainly were thorough. But I am still left with the same problem I asked to begin with.
What exactly it the “biocapacity” of the earth.

Per Wikipedia, capacity of an area to provide resources and absorb wastes. Basically, land surface of the Earth minus land which is biologically unusable (ice caps, no topsoil etc.) plus land equivalent for usable water resources (fishing!).

The resulting number (12-14 billion hectares depending on who you listen to) is roughly the same as land surface of the Earth (14.8 billion hectares).

 

[weller2]

Land is absolutely not all there is to it.

Humans need shelter, houses take land.
Humans need place to work, factories take land.
Humans need food, farming takes land.
Humans need energy, mining takes land.
Humans need minerals, mining takes land.

So, Zimbabwe, a very rich land agriculturally, can’t feed itself and has a wretched economy,

Zimbabwe is actually a great example, it just works backwards. Mr. Mugabe has expelled (or exterminated) white farmers, which means that Zimbabwe has lost technology which allows high agricultural yields. The amount of land Zimbabwe has did not change, but now yields are 30% of what they used to be, so food production is 30% of what it used to be. Population did not change – ergo, food crisis.

while Singapore and Japan which have virtually no natural resources, but very significant human resources, do quite well.

Singapore imports food – this means that the land which feeds Singaporeans is somewhere else. Doesn’t mean that this land does not exist, as you seem to imply.

While individual countries can function using more resources they have (by importing food and raw materials), all of humanity can’t, as there is nowhere outside of Earth to import stuff from.

The assumption that any given country has .9 or 5 or 8 hectares per capita somehow determines its standard of living, it just an assumption based on nothing.

Review the graph which has been posted by me upthread. There is a clear correlation.

 

[weller2]

The sorts of science that you cite in forming your opinions are valid, but are based on the fundamental blunder of static technology and agricultural efficiency assumptions.

It isn’t a blunder, it’s a pretty reasonable (if conservative) assumption when any doing planning. This is because it is pretty hard to predict which way the technology will go.

For the best example, see fusion power. 50 years ago, fusion power was 50 years in the future. Today, fusion power is also 50 years in the future. There’s a good chance that in 50 years, fusion power will still be 50 years in the future.

Besides, and even more importantly, the following two statements are not equivalent:

• we have no problem
• we have a problem, but we will manage to innovate our way out of it

 

[vz71]

Per Wikipedia, capacity of an area to provide resources and absorb wastes. Basically, land surface of the Earth minus land which is biologically unusable (ice caps, no topsoil etc.) plus land equivalent for usable water resources (fishing!).

The resulting number (12-14 billion hectares depending on who you listen to) is roughly the same as land surface of the Earth (14.8 billion hectares).

So we assume ice caps cannot be used? Interesting.
And we assume that an area having no topsoil is a problem? Again interesting.

Perhaps the problem depends on the assumptions.

 

[manualman]

It isn’t a blunder, it’s a pretty reasonable (if conservative) assumption when any doing planning. This is because it is pretty hard to predict which way the technology will go.

Had people organized and centrally planned human endeavors in the mid 1800’s the way you claim to be “reasonable”, it’s likely you and I would never have been born. That sort of approach would have lead to projections of horse and oxen consuming most of the world’s agricultural output (and massive feces collection problems) and thus ecological collapse wiping out human populations unless drastic population reduction programs were adopted.

In other words, EXACTLY the same sort of alarmist trope I hear constantly today. No thanks, they’ve been wrong every time. Every time.

 

[vz71]

For the best example, see fusion power. 50 years ago, fusion power was 50 years in the future. Today, fusion power is also 50 years in the future. There’s a good chance that in 50 years, fusion power will still be 50 years in the future.

Fusion is a poor example.

A more likely example would be the automobile, which has seen steady advances since it began.

 

[Cricket2]

It would seem none have yet.

I agree. We (USA) seem to be headed down an old, historical path. The fall won’t be to overpopulation either.

 

[Cricket2]

Humans need shelter, houses take land.
Humans need place to work, factories take land.
Humans need food, farming takes land.
Humans need energy, mining takes land.
Humans need minerals, mining takes land.

Zimbabwe is actually a great example, it just works backwards. Mr. Mugabe has expelled (or exterminated) white farmers, which means that Zimbabwe has lost technology which allows high agricultural yields. The amount of land Zimbabwe has did not change, but now yields are 30% of what they used to be, so food production is 30% of what it used to be. Population did not change – ergo, food crisis.

Here is some “food for thought.” My family had the opportunity to meet an orchard (apples) farmer several years ago. He explained to my father that in 20 years he only had to use his “first year crop” to meet demand one time. All other years he was able to ship apples that had been in storage three and two years. And only twice did he have to use the 2nd year storage supply. In other words: There is no real shortage of food. There is a lot of price manipulation and supply manipulation, but no real shortage. If a Canadian farmer has to use his first year crop only one time in twenty years just how many apples are there in storage.

Ever wonder why the fruits and veggies have almost no scent or flavor anymore? They are usually 2nd to 3rd year crop supplies (that many years in storage before reaching the stores) and/or they are picked too green which adversely effects their nutritional value…very adversely. Same can be said for the grain crops.

Food shortages are man made not God made. He who controls the food controls and owns the people…and I don’t care what Nation they hail from. Think about it.

Singapore imports food – this means that the land which feeds Singaporeans is somewhere else. Doesn’t mean that this land does not exist, as you seem to imply.

While individual countries can function using more resources they have (by importing food and raw materials), all of humanity can’t, as there is nowhere outside of Earth to import stuff from.

Review the graph which has been posted by me upthread. There is a clear correlation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Humans need shelter, houses take land.
Humans need place to work, factories take land.
Humans need food, farming takes land.
Humans need energy, mining takes land.
Humans need minerals, mining takes land.

Zimbabwe is actually a great example, it just works backwards. Mr. Mugabe has expelled (or exterminated) white farmers, which means that Zimbabwe has lost technology which allows high agricultural yields. The amount of land Zimbabwe has did not change, but now yields are 30% of what they used to be, so food production is 30% of what it used to be. Population did not change – ergo, food crisis.

Singapore imports food – this means that the land which feeds Singaporeans is somewhere else. Doesn’t mean that this land does not exist, as you seem to imply.

While individual countries can function using more resources they have (by importing food and raw materials), all of humanity can’t, as there is nowhere outside of Earth to import stuff from.

Review the graph which has been posted by me upthread. There is a clear correlation.

Of course Singapore imports food. Nobody said they didn’t. But in any given country, the amount of land under cultivation does not determine the prosperity of that country, and precisely because other people who have more land are willing to trade the food for what Singapore produces. Singapore has human resources. Others have agricultural or mineral resources.

Your position is an argument against the very existence of cities in any country. Almost nobody in any city has any appreciable amount of land. They trade what they produce for the food others produce. Human ingenuity and productivity is also a “resource” that you aren’t counting, even though it is probably the most important of all, as the Zimbabwe example attests, but to which the examples of Singapore and Japan attest even more.

China is self-sufficient in food, but the average size of a farm in China is about 1/3 of an acre (about half a hectare). Poverty in China is not due to land area, but to decades of the worst waste of human resources imaginable. The Soviet Union, with immense land resources, was utterly poverty-stricken; a situation from which it has still to recover.