Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

[TheWarriorMonk]

Can you clarify whether you seek to prosecute your argument solely as a scientific debate, or at some base level, does your argument arise from on a theological belief / argument about potential human lifespans? If the latter is a factor, could you explain what it is?

It’s science. The human body appears to have a maximum lifespans, and out of billions of verifiable examples, there is not a single example to prove anything to the contrary. Belief that this is not true is simply in the realm of the purely theoretical.

Do you believe that it may become **possible **to slow the degeneration that we all suffer, such that say, 2% of individuals may live to say, 140 years?

Barring natural or artificial mutations, the only way I can see that happening is by slowing cell division. Of course, that person will not be functioning as a “normal” human being while that is occurring.

 

[Demetra2]

Two years ago EWTN featured a program called “Demographic Winter” where research scientists concluded that overpopulation is a myth. In fact, we now have the opposite problem of vanishing children and consequently vanishing ethic populations. This is due to the radical social changes of the past fifty years where family is just not that important. Birth control, abortion and divorce have taken their toll. Some cultures and ethic groups in the western world will not be able to recover from it and will become minorities in their own countries. Here in the US we are in better shape but European countries with a low birth rate will suffer. Our economies will also suffer due to the lack of people. More people equals more demands for everything which bolsters the economy. Demographics are very revealing and the future without a healthy population growth is very concerning for each nation. Overpopulation is a outright lie.

 

[Rau]

Two years ago EWTN featured a program called “Demographic Winter” where research scientists concluded that overpopulation is a myth. In fact, we now have the opposite problem of vanishing children and consequently vanishing ethic populations. This is due to the radical social changes of the past fifty years where family is just not that important. Birth control, abortion and divorce have taken their toll. Some cultures and ethic groups in the western world will not be able to recover from it and will become minorities in their own countries. Here in the US we are in better shape but European countries with a low birth rate will suffer. Our economies will also suffer due to the lack of people. More people equals more demands for everything which bolsters the economy. Demographics are very revealing and the future without a healthy population growth is very concerning for each nation. Overpopulation is a outright lie.

Do you foresee the earth as being able to accommodate an always growing population? Will it not be necessary for at least stabilisation to occur at some point?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Will it not be necessary for at least stabilisation to occur at some point?

That’s exactly what has happened in isolated populations.

 

[smichhertz]

Joining this thread EXTREMELY late, but I don’t think there’s any real evidence of an overpopulation problem. Perhaps a distribution problem, but there’s easily enough global food supply to feed the world, it’s just not getting distributed correctly.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Joining this thread EXTREMELY late, but I don’t think there’s any real evidence of an overpopulation problem. Perhaps a distribution problem, but there’s easily enough global food supply to feed the world, it’s just not getting distributed correctly.

The level of production of our food supply is dependent on fossil fuels, as does the distribution of the food. Just keeping the food supply production/distribution at current levels assumes an infinite supply of fossil fuels.

 

[kbachler]

That’s exactly what has happened in isolated populations.

That’s not necessarily true. For example, on many occasions the population has outgrown its ability to provide resource and deal with waste, sufficient food or food diversity, etc. and thereby became susceptible to disease and pestilence. Think of the Fort Ancient people for example.

 

[kbachler]

Joining this thread EXTREMELY late, but I don’t think there’s any real evidence of an overpopulation problem. Perhaps a distribution problem, but there’s easily enough global food supply to feed the world, it’s just not getting distributed correctly.

Real evidence has already been posted in this thread in terms of ecological impact.

 

[kbachler]

\Since it is demonstrably false, who is the individual that has verifiably lived to greater than 130 years?

Unnecessary and not to the point. What you stated is that researchers in aging have only offered talk. That’s not true. They have offered experiments demonstrating improvement in longevity in several species. It is generally considered unethical to START with experimentation on humans.

So you’re providing a false choice.

Tissue samples are not a human body, and more than a hubcap is a car. There are samples that will effectively live forever; that doesn’t mean that the human body will, because the human body contains various types.

Another false choice. You’ve argued that the human body must break down. The argument shows that BY ANALYSIS that isn’t necessarily so since PARTS don’t necessarily break down. It therefore becomes an engineering issue to deal with the interactions that cause the breakdown. You haven’t shown that such interactions are forced - all we know for certain is that based on medicine up until today we haven’t yet been able to deal with those interactions in people. We have shown that we can deal with aspects of such interactions in other animals, and we have show that parts of people can live seemingly indefinitely. That certainly is sufficient to open the possibility for more, and that is certainly more than “just talk.”

When Jules Verne wrote “From Here to the Moon” - that was “just talk”, When NASA developed a plan to go to the moon, and was running the Gemini program, for example, at that point it was clearly more than “just talk” even though we hadn’t yet been to the moon.

There are reasons for that…do you know what those reasons are? If not, I suggest you find out what those trade-offs are, because they are very relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes, I know what several of the trade-offs are. I also know that at a fundamental level, it becomes a physics and an engineering problem, and that there are reasonable potential solutions to several of those issues. For example, telomerase therapy has been shown effective in animals for reversing the effects of aging; there is concern that it MIGHT increase cancer risk.

But again you’re overly focused on a SMALL part of the argument. Lifespans have already increased and as medicine improves around the world will increase overpopulation. The ability to fight aging is only slightly here - and if it increases (which is some form is likely) it will only further add to the issue. To continue to do research on the topic without considering the issues it raises is irresponsible.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That’s not necessarily true. For example, on many occasions the population has outgrown its ability to provide resource and deal with waste, sufficient food or food diversity, etc. and thereby became susceptible to disease and pestilence. Think of the Fort Ancient people for example.

The Jarawa, Shompen, Sentinelese, Zo’e, etc. disagree.

Figure out how long they have been in isolation, and project what their current population levels should be versus what they actually are. The available resources limit their growth.

There are other examples in Oceania (no longer fully isolated) whose growth was limited prior to contact. Once the population started exceeding resource availability, they populations were limited by starvation, war with other tribes, infant death, etc.

Somehow smaller populations can be limited by resources, yet somehow people speculate it can’t happen on a larger scale. The only difference between an island out in the sea and the Earth is the size of the island.

 

[kbachler]

Populations in many countries are actually falling.

A statistic that would mislead you if you didn’t look at why.

Many Eastern European countries have falling population - but that’s because the people are moving away and the countries have a low birth rate - generally this is attributed to economic conditions.

Parts of the former Soviet Union are in a similar situation. Cuba also falls into this category.

Japan also has a low birth rate - in part because they believe they have overpopulation for their island.

Greece is declining because of the economic crisis.

Germany and Italy simply have low birth rates.

Overall, not a compelling argument. If a very few countries have a low birth rate and so are relatively stable in terms of rates - and people are moving away – and other countries have high birth rates - taken together the few falling populations doesn’t do much.

 

[Rau]

I understand Adam lived till 930 years of age.

Does anyone know how his offspring faired?

 

[Rau]

There are other examples in Oceania (no longer fully isolated) whose growth was limited prior to contact. Once the population started exceeding resource availability, they populations were limited by starvation, war with other tribes, infant death, etc.

I didn’t think that anyone was disagreeing with the idea that when the environment won’t allow a growing population, then the population won’t grow! It’s just that this is not a “boundary” we’d like to test.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Unnecessary and not to the point. What you stated is that researchers in aging have only offered talk. That’s not true. They have offered experiments demonstrating improvement in longevity in several species. It is generally considered unethical to START with experimentation on humans.

So you’re providing a false choice.

I’m providing a fact with not a single instance to the contrary.

But again you’re overly focused on a SMALL part of the argument. Lifespans have already increased and as medicine improves around the world will increase overpopulation. The ability to fight aging is only slightly here - and if it increases (which is some form is likely) it will only further add to the issue. To continue to do research on the topic without considering the issues it raises is irresponsible.

Average lifespans have increased because we have simply eliminated various factors that caused early death. The includes treating childhood diseases that caused early death, and the treatment of chronic diseases later in life. For those that didn’t die in childhood in the past, ate well, and did daily physical activity, many lived very long. As a example from my own family, one set of siblings lived between 87-107. The one that died at 87 had cancer. The rest lived into their late 90’s or into their 100’s. And they all died by the 1940s, meaning they were born pre-1850.

But increasing average longevity does not mean the maximum age of the human body has increased, nor is there one single example to the contrary.

 

[kbachler]

I’m providing a fact with not a single instance to the contrary.

That’s true. What you fail to mention is that it’s an irrelevant fact. Your claim is that researchers have offered nothing but talk. That statement is untrue. Focusing solely on whether or not a human has already had their lives significantly extended by new aging research is not relevant to whether or not researchers have offered more than just talk.

Average lifespans have increased because we have simply eliminated various factors that caused early death. The includes treating childhood diseases that caused early death, and the treatment of chronic diseases later in life. For those that didn’t die in childhood in the past, ate well, and did daily physical activity, many lived very long. As a example from my own family, one set of siblings lived between 87-107. The one that died at 87 had cancer. The rest lived into their late 90’s or into their 100’s. And they all died by the 1940s, meaning they were born pre-1850.

But increasing average longevity does not mean the maximum age of the human body has increased, nor is there one single example to the contrary.

You have yet to demonstrate that there even IS a maximum age to the human body. What we have seen is that when a human body is ravaged by age-related diseases, it eventually dies. What we have shown is that there is evidence both in humans and in other species that there is opportunity to manage those diseases.

Your argument is like saying: “There is no way that a wheeled vehicle can go faster than 45 mph.” Then someone says - “Well, what if we can apply an engine to the vehicle?” And your response is “Well, no one has EVER applied an engine that fast to a vehicle, there is not one single instance of it!” And we point out - well, engines HAVE been used for other purposes, and we can show that smaller engines have been put on vehicles, so its fairly reasonable to say that there’s at least a possibility of going faster than that." Your response is “That’s just talk.”

The logic of your arguments, as shown above, is demonstrably poor.

I’m glad the Wright Brothers didn’t buy into your style of argument.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That’s true. What you fail to mention is that it’s an irrelevant fact. Your claim is that researchers have offered nothing but talk. That statement is untrue. Focusing solely on whether or not a human has already had their lives significantly extended by new aging research is not relevant to whether or not researchers have offered more than just talk.

Yes it is relevant. You wishing it not to be does not make it so. There appears to be a maximum age that the human body can exist, based on its basic biological structure. And since there is not one single verifiable instance out of billions of examples that this is not the case, that would make it appear to be true (100% confidence level at this point).

Your arguments, and others that support your POV, reside purely in the theoretical realm. Because it is purely theoretical nature, you can use that theory to dismiss observed data.

You have yet to demonstrate that there even IS a maximum age to the human body.

Your attempting to spin the discussion. There are billions of examples that support my POV, and not one instance to the contrary. You are use a theory with not one single actual example to discredit real data, currently with a certainty of 100%.

What we have seen is that when a human body is ravaged by age-related diseases, it eventually dies. What we have shown is that there is evidence both in humans and in other species that there is opportunity to manage those diseases.

The “age-related diseases” are structural in nature. Exercise, eating right, medicine, etc. do not address those structural issues, therefore they are irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to having a scientific background, I was also a health nut (hardcore vegan) for several years, and am very familiar with diet, exercise, and “alternative medicine” (i.e., the kind that helps, not breaks down, the body as many “modern” medicines do). Quality of life is increased, often dramatically, due to this lifestyle, but the effect on longevity appears to be limited, and it does not approach the maximum expected age (for obvious reasons).

Your argument is like saying: “There is no way that a wheeled vehicle can go faster than 45 mph.” Then someone says - “Well, what if we can apply an engine to the vehicle?” And your response is “Well, no one has EVER applied an engine that fast to a vehicle, there is not one single instance of it!” And we point out - well, engines HAVE been used for other purposes, and we can show that smaller engines have been put on vehicles, so its fairly reasonable to say that there’s at least a possibility of going faster than that." Your response is “That’s just talk.”

The logic of your arguments, as shown above, is demonstrably poor.

Actually, your last argument is exceedingly poor. First, you are comparing a non-biological system to a biological one…it’s not a good idea to compare things that have nothing in common. Second, in your argument, you are attempting to compare an example with something that clearly is not a maximum to something to has a very probable maximum (100% certainty to date), and using that example to prove that a maximum doesn’t exist. That’s a major logic fail.

BTW, I have logic training…got an “A” in that class also.

I’m glad the Wright Brothers didn’t buy into your style of argument.

The Wright Brothers didn’t attempt to faster than the speed of light.

Part of progress is understanding what is and is not possible. If one thinks exercise, medicine, eating right will push the average human lifespan past 120, they’re simply clueless, as it has no basis in reality. As I’ve said earlier, it may be possible to increase the age past the current maximum, but it requires structural changes, such as natural or artificial (genetic engineering) mutations. That’s a realistic POV.

 

[Lokadottir]

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’ve heard before that the problem in Japan (at least Tokyo) is business men working so much they don’t have time to do the do. Seriously the places those guys try to catch Z’s is hilarious.

 

[kbachler]

Yes it is relevant. You wishing it not to be does not make it so. There appears to be a maximum age that the human body can exist, based on its basic biological structure. And since there is not one single verifiable instance out of billions of examples that this is not the case, that would make it appear to be true (100% confidence level at this point).

Sorry, it’s not relevant because its off topic. The topic is whether researchers have offered anything besides talk. They demonstrably have. The age of any particular human is not relevant to that.

That is not a wish on my part.

Your arguments, and others that support your POV, reside purely in the theoretical realm. Because it is purely theoretical nature, you can use that theory to dismiss observed data.

Completed research is more than theoretical. You don’t seem to understand that.

Your attempting to spin the discussion. There are billions of examples that support my POV, and not one instance to the contrary. You are use a theory with not one single actual example to discredit real data, currently with a certainty of 100%.

There are NO examples that support your POV. The only point of view that human’s to date support is that to date aging has been an issue. The day before the polio vaccine was approved, it was purely theoretical and there was no way to fight polio and there were millions of cases that prove that. That’s a false induction. Deduction works much better, and much better here. One needs to understand the underlying issues and the actual work that is being done.

The “age-related diseases” are structural in nature. Exercise, eating right, medicine, etc. do not address those structural issues, therefore they are irrelevant to the discussion.

This statement has already been demonstrated to be false. It’s already been shown in animals that diet can, in fact, positively impact some of the structural issues, and there are tests in humans that show some promise. The issue appears to be more HOW to do it and the RIGHT WAY to do is as opposed to whether there is an impact.

In addition to having a scientific background, I was also a health nut (hardcore vegan) for several years, and am very familiar with diet, exercise, and “alternative medicine” (i.e., the kind that helps, not breaks down, the body as many “modern” medicines do). Quality of life is increased, often dramatically, due to this lifestyle, but the effect on longevity appears to be limited, and it does not approach the maximum expected age (for obvious reasons).

Good for you. Your knowledge of science, aging and logic as demonstrated in this thread are questionable, however.

Actually, your last argument is exceedingly poor. First, you are comparing a non-biological system to a biological one…it’s not a good idea to compare things that have nothing in common.

For purposes of comparison, that doesn’t matter, because I am not comparing a biological system to a non-biological one. What I am doing is demonstrating that the FORM of your argument doesn’t hold, and LOGIC DEPENDS ON FORM. If you use an argument that doesn’t hold by form, it doesn’t hold irrespective of the premises.

Second, in your argument, you are attempting to compare an example with something that clearly is not a maximum to something to has a very probable maximum (100% certainty to date), and using that example to prove that a maximum doesn’t exist. That’s a major logic fail.

There is no evidence that it very probably has a maximum. Prior to eradicating diseases, many people would have argued that the maximum was much lower than today. You are ASSUMING a maximum - that is - begging the question. You’re assuming what you are attempting to prove.

BTW, I have logic training…got an “A” in that class also.

Good for you. I taught logic in college multiple times, including an advanced class. You wouldn’t have gotten an A from me. The last time I taught the introductory course, it was taught as a 5 hour course, including not only the standard text by Copi, but also readings from Aristotle (Categories, and Posterior Analytics), Boole, Frege, Russell, and Godel. I have demonstrated that your form of argument was flawed, which is sufficient.

The Wright Brothers didn’t attempt to faster than the speed of light.

Not relevant. The maximum age of a species has not been shown to be a fundamental law of the universe. There is significant evidence that a maximum special age is not a fundamental law, and that it in fact doesn’t exist.

Part of progress is understanding what is and is not possible. If one thinks exercise, medicine, eating right will push the average human lifespan past 120, they’re simply clueless, as it has no basis in reality.

Again, there is already evidence to the contrary.

As I’ve said earlier, it may be possible to increase the age past the current maximum, but it requires structural changes, such as natural or artificial (genetic engineering) mutations. That’s a realistic POV.

That’s been discussed in addition to the fundamental changes above.

So, since you admit its possible with your last sentence above, why are you spending all this time arguing (unsuccessfully) that it isn’t, especially only to contradict yourself?

 

[Rau]

If one thinks exercise, medicine, eating right will push the average human lifespan past 120, they’re simply clueless, as it has no basis in reality. As I’ve said earlier, it may be possible to increase the age past the current maximum, but it requires structural changes, such as natural or artificial (genetic engineering) mutations. That’s a realistic POV.

Your position seems to be that factors endogenous to our very cells guarantee a maximum lifespan not too different from the maximum we see today (which of those currently living is 112, I believe). An individual (having sufficient quality of genetic traits) can achieve said maximum simply by avoiding the exogenous factors that might bring about an earlier end.

Decay is certainly a reality. So let us accept that theory. So my question then is: Why are you so sure that the endogenous factors cannot be influenced by medical treatment? And my 2nd question is: Why do you hold this view so dogmatically?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Sorry, it’s not relevant because its off topic. The topic is whether researchers have offered anything besides talk. They demonstrably have. The age of any particular human is not relevant to that.

I’m not sure how data supporting the maximum lifespan of a human being is off topic when we are discussing human lifespan, and theory that has not a single data point to support that theory is.

Completed research is more than theoretical. You don’t seem to understand that.

As someone who has a science degree, I most certainly do. You do not seem to understand that something that simply resides in the theoretical realm is “complete research.”

There are NO examples that support your POV. The only point of view that human’s to date support is that to date aging has been an issue. The day before the polio vaccine was approved, it was purely theoretical and there was no way to fight polio and there were millions of cases that prove that. That’s a false induction. Deduction works much better, and much better here. One needs to understand the underlying issues and the actual work that is being done.

Irrelevant. More examples that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Any organism can be killed. This has no relevance to the biological structure of the human body.

And, of course, your statement indicates that your knowledge is limited to western medicine only. If you wish to have an all-emcompassing world view, you should not be limiting yourself in that manner.

Good for you. Your knowledge of science, aging and logic as demonstrated in this thread are questionable, however.

What science degrees do you have to make such a judgement?

For purposes of comparison, that doesn’t matter, because I am not comparing a biological system to a non-biological one. What I am doing is demonstrating that the FORM of your argument doesn’t hold, and LOGIC DEPENDS ON FORM. If you use an argument that doesn’t hold by form, it doesn’t hold irrespective of the premises.

Your logical arguments, quite frankly, are preposterous. I’m not sure if you intend to do that or you have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t use an analogy with a given maximum that is essential to the issue at hand, then use another analogy that has no such assumption. They have nothing to do with each other.

There is no evidence that it very probably has a maximum.

While it is true that the maximum could be higher than what is expected, the preponderance of data (remember your comments on “complete research?”), which includes 100% of the data, indicates that it is a very strong probably. That’s just the data alone; we’re not even considering data concerning what happens to the chromosomes when the cell divides, etc.

Prior to eradicating diseases, many people would have argued that the maximum was much lower than today. You are ASSUMING a maximum - that is - begging the question. You’re assuming what you are attempting to prove.

No me…as noted earlier, there are plenty of people that lived WAY longer than the current averages, born back as far as the 1830s.

Good for you. I taught logic in college multiple times, including an advanced class. You wouldn’t have gotten an A from me.

More erroneous assumptions. I’m very adaptive and know how to ace any class.

Not relevant. The maximum age of a species has not been shown to be a fundamental law of the universe. There is significant evidence that a maximum special age is not a fundamental law, and that it in fact doesn’t exist.

Not a fundamental law, but one with 100% of the data supporting that contention. You have 0% of the data supporting yours, thus your contention resides purely in the theoretical realm. If you believe that your theory is correct, state so and leave it at that. You discredit and marginalize yourself when you ignore the 100% of the data that does not support such theory.

So, since you admit its possible with your last sentence above, why are you spending all this time arguing (unsuccessfully) that it isn’t, especially only to contradict yourself?

Because it can happen, and in the manner already described: Genetic mutation (i.e., structural change).