Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueFrog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
It doesn’t matter what kind of economic system one has. A population must replace itself or face population decline. Russia and Europe are already facing the problem. Even if they go back to a feudal economy, no nation can long exist with a declining population. And a declining population trend, once begun, is not easily halted.
Click to expand...
Population decline is a non-issue at this point. If we’re talking about a population of say, 100 people or so, such as the Onge population, then I might agree, but not when there are billions of people.

People think that because a society is at a steady state or declining population, it’s a crisis. That’s simply false. Populations rise; populations decline, depending on the amount of resources available, stress, and other factors. It is unreasonable to assume that populations at these levels will simply decline all the way down to zero, and there is no basis for such an assumption. One of the most obvious modern day examples of this just so happens to be a Catholic country. Ireland’s population declined for nearly a century, and has been steadily rising since.
 
Jon_S said:
The issue is not overpopulation, it is management of the abundant resources available to us.
Click to expand...
This ^^^^

Water-- there is plenty of water on this planet. But desalination plants cost “too much”

People go hungry, but restaurants throw away tons of food each night instead of donating to shelters, etc.

People donate money to the arts, etc but not for the poor (I’m not saying that donating to the arts is bad)

We have corrupt governments in dictator nations who keep the money to themselves instead of feeding people, etc.

The priorities of the human race are out of whack.

Please claim there is overpopulation because they want to keep more resources to themselves.
 
I think the truth is that there isn’t any crisis.

A generation ago we were being warned about the “population explosion” and the need to do something about it. Now we are being warned about “demographic winter.”

While the contours of human societies never stop changing, human life will go on.

ICXC NIKA
 
People love to dispute the overpopulation issue because someone made an incorrect prediction decades ago. That’s not a excuse to throw the entire subject out the window. The reason that the time frame is off is simply due to the lack of understanding of how much nonrenewable fossil fuels was available. The reality of the situation is that current population levels are sustainable solely because of fossil fuel resources, and maintaining the current population in the future assumes and endless supply of nonrenewable sources of fuel.
 
To prove a point: the entire population of the world will fit into the State of Texas, each individual (not family) living in their own 1,069 square foot living space. Note that this is larger than many urban and suburban family homes. This leaves the rest of the earth completely uninhabited by man and available for the production of food, clothing and industry.

The problem is geographic concentration of the population, made worse by political and economic restrictions.

Those who fear the manufactured “overpopulation” problem always want to kill the next generation, and what is left of the last generation, to make their generation comfortable. Not one of them ever volunteers to make room by sacrificing themselves.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
People love to dispute the overpopulation issue because someone made an incorrect prediction decades ago. That’s not a excuse to throw the entire subject out the window. The reason that the time frame is off is simply due to the lack of understanding of how much nonrenewable fossil fuels was available. The reality of the situation is that current population levels are sustainable solely because of fossil fuel resources, and maintaining the current population in the future assumes and endless supply of nonrenewable sources of fuel.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting point, and probably the best point on the side of those who argue for overpopulation being a problem, the fact that fossil fuels will one day run out, they are not renewable. However, as technology continues to develop I tend to believe we will develop enough sources of renewable energy to keep our current population sustainable for when that time eventually comes. People are already making electric cars and we have multiple renewable sources of electricity, its all a matter of having enough time and the right intuitive thinkers to figure it out and set it all in motion before we run out of non-renewable source of energy.

Apart from that question, however, the threat of a declining population is a very real threat. If it is a very gradual decline then it probably won’t be a huge problem, but if it gets to the level of a significant enough decline that will cause huge problems for the economy.
 
po18guy said:
To prove a point: the entire population of the world will fit into the State of Texas, each individual (not family) living in their own 1,069 square foot living space. Note that this is larger than many urban and suburban family homes. This leaves the rest of the earth completely uninhabited by man and available for the production of food, clothing and industry.

The problem is geographic concentration of the population, made worse by political and economic restrictions.

Those who fear the manufactured “overpopulation” problem always want to kill the next generation, and what is left of the last generation, to make their generation comfortable. Not one of them ever volunteers to make room by sacrificing themselves.
Click to expand...
a lot of the Earth is unsuitable for production of food, you also have to worry about water and infrastructure constraints.
 
po18guy said:
To prove a point: the entire population of the world will fit into the State of Texas, each individual (not family) living in their own 1,069 square foot living space.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t prove anything except that you can fit the population of the world in Texas. You can stick them all on Jupiter and they’d have more room, but they’d all be dead in rather quickly. Why? Lack of resources. And resources dictate population size, not land area.

Fact is, without massive use of nonrenewable resources, the population of the earth would stabilized years ago. It’s already happened in isolated environments long ago.
Those who fear the manufactured “overpopulation” problem always want to kill the next generation, and what is left of the last generation, to make their generation comfortable. Not one of them ever volunteers to make room by sacrificing themselves.
Click to expand...
This is an extremist argument that is often used: Make the other side look extreme to justify one’s opinions. Fact is, there are those of us who favor preparing for the inevitable. I would prefer to live sustainably, rather than have nature force it upon us, which is a rather ugly scenario.
 
GEddie said:
Say more about the irrecoverable rate. Why couldn’t they get it back in later generations?
Click to expand...
I’ve read several papers that quote the fertility rate of 1.4 as being the point of no return. I can’t speak to how they came up with that number, but just doing some quick math, with a starting population of 1,000 (assuming it’s an equal split between women & men), after two generations with a fertility rate of 1.4, you’d have a breeding population of just 115 women. That’s a pretty stark drop-off. I’m guessing recovery at that point would be theoretically possible but rather unlikely.
 
thewanderer said:
This is a very interesting point, and probably the best point on the side of those who argue for overpopulation being a problem, the fact that fossil fuels will one day run out, they are not renewable. However, as technology continues to develop I tend to believe we will develop enough sources of renewable energy to keep our current population sustainable for when that time eventually comes. People are already making electric cars and we have multiple renewable sources of electricity, its all a matter of having enough time and the right intuitive thinkers to figure it out and set it all in motion before we run out of non-renewable source of energy.
Click to expand...
The problem with most of these technologies is that they result in using up energy at an even faster rate. Each conversion of energy results in a loss (and must result in a loss).
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
a lot of the Earth is unsuitable for production of food, you also have to worry about water and infrastructure constraints.
Click to expand...
No kidding! I was rather hoping that you might just consider that there is a whole lot of unused land out there which will support agriculture right now, and probably double that with irrigation - just like has already been done in the developed world.

That points to decent economic development, as was Pope Francis’ prayer intention for January, as a means of helping to solve the problem.
 
Gordon_Sims said:
I’ve read several papers that quote the fertility rate of 1.4 as being the point of no return. I can’t speak to how they came up with that number, but just doing some quick math, with a starting population of 1,000 (assuming it’s an equal split between women & men), after two generations with a fertility rate of 1.4, you’d have a breeding population of just 115 women. That’s a pretty stark drop-off. I’m guessing recovery at that point would be theoretically possible but rather unlikely.
Click to expand...
Ireland disagrees.
 
po18guy said:
No kidding! I was rather hoping that you might just consider that there is a whole lot of unused land out there which will support agriculture right now, and probably double that with irrigation - just like has already been done in the developed world.
Click to expand...
Irrigation of arid lands requires an intense use of fossil fuel resources. I sure wouldn’t want to be in Saudi Arabia when they run out of oil…
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
The problem with most of these technologies is that they result in using up energy at an even faster rate. Each conversion of energy results in a loss (and must result in a loss).
Click to expand...
So you have to tie it to a source large enough to amortize those losses. The best is the sun, although capturing that energy at ground level is expensive.

ICXC NIKA
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
This doesn’t prove anything except that you can fit the population of the world in Texas. You can stick them all on Jupiter and they’d have more room, but they’d all be dead in rather quickly. Why? Lack of resources. And resources dictate population size, not land area.
Click to expand...
Have you considered switching to decaf?
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Birth rate has nothing to do with determining whether or not overpopulation exists. It has everything to do with resources in the environment.
Click to expand...
I accept and fully believe in the doctrine of the Church. Let me make it clear, I do not support the horrors of abortion, nor do I approve of contraception. With that said, our species [mankind] clearly cannot sustain our current population levels. As you say the resources are not there, nor is the will there for the rest of the world to insure that people do not starve because there are millions who are starving.

I don’t know what the answer is but given the maturation of mankind and the constant talk of end times along with Biblical Prophecy, I have to wonder if we will ever live to see a state of equilibrium. I am not a Biblical or theological scholar, but I have eyes, ears, and intellect. All of these things tell me that Earth is still a very harsh place for many people, even for those who live in countries considered to be wealthy.
 
po18guy said:
No kidding! I was rather hoping that you might just consider that there is a whole lot of unused land out there which will support agriculture right now, and probably double that with irrigation - just like has already been done in the developed world.

That points to decent economic development, as was Pope Francis’ prayer intention for January, as a means of helping to solve the problem.
Click to expand...
The Holy Father is 100% correct about “decent economic development” being a viable solution to millions of woes. If we could all follow his thought, live or TRY our VERY BEST to follow the example of Christ, there would be a terrific turn around in less then a decade. But in a world partially controlled by evil, I just am afraid we wont live to see that time. We have to try, no doubt about it, but I just feel sadly skeptical about our chances. Maybe I would feel more optimistic about it if my own position was in a better state of affairs.

God Bless the Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top