Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

[Geist]

In the West? Myth.

Third world? Serious problem.

 

[GEddie]

In the West? Myth.

Third world? Serious problem.

Even in the 3W, it is starting to look like a false alarm.

China is facing a demographic crash due to its one-child law of the past generation, and the Latin Americans are also experiencing the contraceptive demographic we have in NA.

The USA has escaped population decline because Latin America has taken up the slack, but this too will come to an end.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

China is facing a demographic crash due to its one-child law of the past generation

Void in all population discussions about China is what happened prior to implementing this policy. Hint: it didn’t work out too well. Even at current population levels, China has some real basic resource issues.

 

[GEddie]

Void in all population discussions about China is what happened prior to implementing this policy. Hint: it didn’t work out too well. Even at current population levels, China has some real basic resource issues.

And without ever having such a law, once-overcrowded Japan is also going into a population crash.

While not a third-world nation, Japan is part of Asia, and shows that even in that crowded continent, population issues can and do balance out without draconic “control” measures.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

And without ever having such a law, once-overcrowded Japan is also going into a population crash.

While not a third-world nation, Japan is part of Asia, and shows that even in that crowded continent, population issues can and do balance out without draconic “control” measures.

ICXC NIKA

I never stated or implied that draconian measures were proper, I’m just noting that there was a reason they were implemented. And it wasn’t “just because.”

 

[JimG]

In Kansas we have a name for areas which experience serious demographic declines. We call them ghost towns.

It’s interesting that people generally flock to areas of better opportunity, which are mostly those areas most densely populated—big cities. The areas of highest population density are those that do best. Ghost towns just disappear. Now it seems that the entire globe has an earnest desire for ghost town status.

I don’t expect to live long enough to see the worst effects of demographic winter. But many reading these forums will still be around. It will be a sad and aging world.

 

[Rau]

The issue is not overpopulation, it is management of the abundant resources available to us.

Abundant, but not infinite. Would you agree that there comes a time when population overall must not keep increasing, given a finite world? Would you be comfortable to see birth rates at around replacement rates?

 

[Rau]

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.

The case of Japan with a declining population and nil immigration will provide another fascinating live experiment.

 

[Rau]

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

That is absolutely true. But it does not assure us of “happy times” regardless of our population trajectory. Overshooting population (whatever limits may apply) would likely lead to undesirable consequences.

 

[Rau]

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.

Better population distribution and politics would no doubt improve global capacity. But,…

Once Texas is full, where do the subsequent extra people go? And then? And after that? Population growth cannot proceed without end, therefore it won’t. But understand there may be some misery involved in the turnaround!

 

[Rau]

And without ever having such a law, once-overcrowded Japan is also going into a population crash.

While not a third-world nation, Japan is part of Asia, and shows that even in that crowded continent, population issues can and do balance out without draconic “control” measures.

ICXC NIKA

Japan, by virtue of its developed status, entered population decline by the free choice of the people. Difficult economic consequences seem certain, given the cost on the declining proportion of working people to support the increasing proportion of elderly.

China followed another course where low fertility rates were imposed. It risks a similar economic problem to Japan. Had China, as a poor, undeveloped nation not imposed controls, what would have happened? The population today would have been much higher, pollution much worse, death rates much higher. A great deal of misery I suspect could not be avoided, but ultimately, the population would be moderated, however unpalatable the means.

 

[GEddie]

The problem is that if you mean to control population, draconic means must be imposed. There is no other way to shackle a basic human drive.

China has always been a control society, but the rest of the world will never accept such measures. And with the possible exception of India, there is no need for them elsewhere.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rau]

The problem is that if you mean to control population, draconic means must be imposed. There is no other way to shackle a basic human drive.

China has always been a control society, but the rest of the world will never accept such measures. And with the possible exception of India, there is no need for them elsewhere.

ICXC NIKA

One wonders what population trajectory we’d have seen in the globe had there been no contraception and no forced fertility controls (and no abortion)?

 

[manualman]

One wonders what population trajectory we’d have seen in the globe had there been no contraception and no forced fertility controls (and no abortion)?

Populations booms really only happen on a sustained basis in the recently developing world (Demographic Stage 2). Look at England and France in the late 1800’s as they completed that transition to mature industrialized: their TFRs dropped to around replacement rate in all the urban areas and not terribly much higher even in the rural areas. All this BEFORE the pill, latex condoms or abortion became “respectable.”

These things really aren’t needed for populations to be stable. What’s needed is education, stable government and economic opportunity to become commonplace for a couple generations. At that point human nature appears to adjust naturally to industrialized conditions. That’s the RECORD, not my assertion.

When people try to hurry Stage 2 via contraception pushes, things bypass stage 3 and move into (what I alone so far call) Stage 4 with below replacement TFRs.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Populations booms really only happen on a sustained basis in the recently developing world (Demographic Stage 2). Look at England and France in the late 1800’s as they completed that transition to mature industrialized: their TFRs dropped to around replacement rate in all the urban areas and not terribly much higher even in the rural areas. All this BEFORE the pill, latex condoms or abortion became “respectable.”

These things really aren’t needed for populations to be stable. What’s needed is education, stable government and economic opportunity to become commonplace for a couple generations. At that point human nature appears to adjust naturally to industrialized conditions. That’s the RECORD, not my assertion.

When people try to hurry Stage 2 via contraception pushes, things bypass stage 3 and move into (what I alone so far call) Stage 4 with below replacement TFRs.

France’s population growth was rather anomalous during the 19th and early 20th century.

 

[Hobbes42]

One factor to consider regarding population levels is war. War can act as a pressure valve on a burgeoning population. I don’t mean to sound callous, but the second general war ranked in at an estimated 85 million. There’s no telling that another war of such grievous loss of life, or even worse given nuclear weaponry-won’t occur.
Thus, it would seem that population is by nature self regulating when you look at disease, famine, war.

 

[Rau]

Populations booms really only happen on a sustained basis in the recently developing world (Demographic Stage 2). Look at England and France in the late 1800’s as they completed that transition to mature industrialized: their TFRs dropped to around replacement rate in all the urban areas and not terribly much higher even in the rural areas. All this BEFORE the pill, latex condoms or abortion became “respectable.”

These things really aren’t needed for populations to be stable. What’s needed is education, stable government and economic opportunity to become commonplace for a couple generations. At that point human nature appears to adjust naturally to industrialized conditions. That’s the RECORD.

Are you examining birth rates or population growth (the latter factors in the full impact of wars, famines, etc?). Did birth rates moderate significantly in England and France? Was it due to Less sex/Periodic abstinence? Or other forms of contraception?

 

[THP]

Birth rate has nothing to do with determining whether or not overpopulation exists. It has everything to do with resources in the environment.

I think we can all agree with this. Overpopulation would be by definition when the population exceeds the environment’s ability (with the aid of technology or otherwise) to support it.

The question is are we anywhere near approaching it? Do we need to worry about it either way? The population will correct itself but will probably involve suffering -which has always been part of the human condition.

 

[THP]

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).

I wish this was understood by more people.

 

[THP]

Once Texas is full, where do the subsequent extra people go? And then? And after that? Population growth cannot proceed without end, therefore it won’t. But understand there may be some misery involved in the turnaround!

Soylent Green is people!