Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

The oldest age of a human being that can be verified is 122.

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?

Unlike others, I have no faith in “medical treatment,” particularly the type of treatment that exists in the western world. Overall, I believe that it does more harm than good, since it is oriented toward treatment of symptoms, not effecting cures. Yes, it can force the body to live longer than it is intended to, but that doesn’t mean that they are living a good quality of life, or even living longer than people that simply exercise and eat healthy.

And my 2nd question is: Why do you hold this view so dogmatically?

Simple…My opinions reside in reality, not fantasy. This planet is filled with every possible type of person you can imagine: From people that do not take care of themselves, to people that live perfect lives in terms of health. Yet 100% of the data indicate a lifespan below a certain age.

And dogmatically is the wrong word; I will most certainly change, or modify, my opinion on a matter if I am shown wrong. I do not hold on to or defend errors in my thinking as others insist on doing (it’s human nature). However, when someone presents a purely theoretically idea with not a single data point to support it and presents it as fact, I’m not going to be convinced of anything.

 

[runwaymodel]

It is a very real issue but that isn’t the right question. The better question would be how do we deal with it? Obviously we cannot put a limit on how many offspring people reproduce (though certain Politicians could argue otherwise–China had implemented something in regards to that), but alternative ways to sustain the ever growing population. Resources decline and we need to get smarter solutions on how to handle this now so future generations don’t suffer and have to clean up our mess.
It’s actually extremely overwhelming to think about because there is no long term solution or short term fix.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It is a very real issue but that isn’t the right question. The better question would be how do we deal with it? Obviously we cannot put a limit on how many offspring people reproduce (though certain Politicians could argue otherwise–China had implemented something in regards to that), but alternative ways to sustain the ever growing population. Resources decline and we need to get smarter solutions on how to handle this now so future generations don’t suffer and have to clean up our mess.
It’s actually extremely overwhelming to think about because there is no long term solution or short term fix.

Unfortunately, given the state of where modern society is, where people are disconnected from their environment, solutions will be reactionary. Nature will take it’s course, resulting in societal upheaval, then man will figure out solutions.

FWIW, the Chinese solution just so happens to be a reactionary solution. Westerners only discuss the “one-child” policy, and often have no knowledge of the “have as many children as humanly possible” that preceded it.

 

[smichhertz]

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.

No, it’s saying the opposite, that the current production / distribution level is unsatisfactory. I think you may have misinterpreted my original post.

 

[Rau]

The oldest age of a human being that can be verified is 122.

Unlike others, I have no faith in “medical treatment,” particularly the type of treatment that exists in the western world. Overall, I believe that it does more harm than good, since it is oriented toward treatment of symptoms, not effecting cures. Yes, it can force the body to live longer than it is intended to, but that doesn’t mean that they are living a good quality of life, or even living longer than people that simply exercise and eat healthy.

…My opinions reside in reality, not fantasy. This planet is filled with every possible type of person you can imagine: From people that do not take care of themselves, to people that live perfect lives in terms of health. Yet 100% of the data indicate a lifespan below a certain age.

And dogmatically is the wrong word; I will most certainly change, or modify, my opinion on a matter if I am shown wrong. I do not hold on to or defend errors in my thinking as others insist on doing (it’s human nature). However, when someone presents a purely theoretically idea with not a single data point to support it and presents it as fact, I’m not going to be convinced of anything.

This greatly clarifies my understanding of where you are coming from.

I did not think the issue that you and kbachler were discussing of late was about whether a bit more exercise and a better diet could extend materially the upper reaches of our lifespan, but rather whether medical interventions might be possible which have that effect?

I withdraw “dogmatic”, perhaps “emphatic” will do. But do you think you tend to a bit of a “doubting Thomas” pre-disposition; a preference to deny strenuously what is not yet demonstrated or readily foreseeable? Given the history of great medical breakthroughs, not readily anticipated by the layman, I tend to favour the more circumspect position - “perhaps it will be possible in time, but the degree of difficulty seems to be high!”

 

[smichhertz]

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

Hi kbachler,

Not sure what to make of this post. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Elaborating? Just curious in case you were trying to make a point I missed.

Thanks!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But do you think you tend to a bit of a “doubting Thomas” pre-disposition; a preference to deny strenuously what is not yet demonstrated or readily foreseeable?

If by doubting Thomas you mean not accepting as truth a theory with not a single instance of data to the contrary, then yes I am a doubting Thomas.

If I came up with a theory that in the future most people will have two heads, would you believe it? After all, there are more people with two heads than people that have lived past their mid-120s? Or are you also a doubting Thomas?

FWIW, I consider myself a realist.

Given the history of great medical breakthroughs, not readily anticipated by the layman, I tend to favour the more circumspect position - “perhaps it will be possible in time, but the degree of difficulty seems to be high!”

I suggest reviewing what these medical breakthroughs are, and how the influenced our lives. The major medical breakthroughs are not of the nature of extending our natural lives, but rather of treating diseases that are typically self inflicted or external (viruses, bacteria, etc.). They actually don’t extend lives, but rather ward off early death.

I did not think the issue that you and kbachler were discussing of late was about whether a bit more exercise and a better diet could extend materially the upper reaches of our lifespan, but rather whether medical interventions might be possible which have that effect?

I’ve already explained how that will happen; genetic modification. That is an approach based in reality, not fantasy. Want to live longer like certain other animals? Simple, have the genes of other animals. Even still, I don’t believe it will do much to increase the overall lifespan. We can’t even get basic medicine to people; I doubt that we will have the means to do genetic tampering on everyone.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

No, it’s saying the opposite, that the current production / distribution level is unsatisfactory. I think you may have misinterpreted my original post.

Production and distribution doesn’t solve the problem if we run out of things to produce and distribute.

Modern food production levels is very reliant on fossil fuels. If we ever run out of fossils fuels, our food production, and population, will dramatically decrease.

 

[smichhertz]

Production and distribution doesn’t solve the problem if we run out of things to produce and distribute.

Agreed.

Modern food production levels is very reliant on fossil fuels. If we ever run out of fossils fuels, our food production, and population, will dramatically decrease.

Agreed.

These are great arguments for renewable energy, efficient consumption, etc. My point was simply that overpopulation is a myth.

 

[manualman]

This thread still has legs? Wow!

Is there really anybody left who thinks that global fertility trends are going to remain above replacement indefinitely such that extraordinary efforts need to be enacted to reduce the number of babies people have? Seriously?

Even the famously Malthusian folks at the UN population division have acknowledged that the global peak population is in sight and that we face a decline afterwards. There is still debate about how steep that decline will be, but very few demographers of any repute still predict indefinite TFRs above replacement level on a global basis.

Yes, it’s true that the current agricultural system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, but we aren’t exactly about to run out. As they get more scarce, oil will go up gradually and food will too. But we can adjust to that. We’ve just gotten spoiled by cheap oil making everything so cheap. Ever seen a picture of nighttime Earth from space? The amount of wasteful lighting alone is probably enough to power global agriculture (the tractors) and just as effective (if more expensive) means are out there for fertilizing. Oil isn’t just fluid in a tank. As it gets scarce, the price will go up gradually enough for us to adjust, economize and innovate. The peak oil guys have been crying wolf for decades and it never comes true.

 

[kbachler]

Response part 1:

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.

I have explained it several times. It addresses a specific comment by you.

You stated that researchers (into aging) have offered nothing but talk.

The above statement has nothing to do with the age of any given individual. It has to do with whether researchers have ONLY talked about what is possible, or if there have actually been (favorable) experiments.

Your continue assertion about the age of individuals has nothing to do with whether researchers have done experiments.

Now you should be sure as to why your comment has continuously been off topic.

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.”

I suggest you read Polyani’s Personal Knowledge; apparently your science degree is incomplete. My degree was also in science with concentrations in mathematics, logic and philosophy, which was summa cum laude. Are we done comparing size yet, and can we stick to the actual information?

When experiments have been run and have produced information supporting a hypothesis, the information is no longer purely theoretical.* **Purely theoretical ***implies a model only, not a model that has been subject to some amount of testing with favorable results.

 

[kbachler]

Reply part 2

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.

Again, you’re missing the point of the argument. The point had nothing to do with biology or what organisms can be killed. The point is that the argument demonstrates that the FORM of your argument is incorrect, and therefore not logical, and therefore does not hold. You don’t seem to grasp this simple concept.

The argument “It’s always been that way” which is the simple reduction of you argument of “People have always died before 130 years of age” is an invalid form of induction, because things can change. By your logic, we would assume that the sun will ALWAYS come up tomorrow, but we know scientifically that it will not - thus proving that the FORM of your argument is incorrect (because it takes only one example to so prove that.)

If you could show, scientifically, that the human body ages at a certain rate and must always do so, that would be an argument in the right direction. But we already know that you can’t show that, because its already been demonstrated in several species, including humans, that not every species or every body within a species ages at the same rate. Its also been shown that the rate of aging can in fact be changed by factors like diet and exercise - something that you’ve consistently claimed cannot be done.

You need to learn to discern between logical arguments and scientific ones, and logical arguments and illogical ones. Your demonstrated knowledge of logic in this thread is quite poor.

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.

And of course, you’ve demonstrated again that you totally missed the point, because the argument had nothing to do with medicine, it had to do with logical form.

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

My undergrad degree is in Natural Science encompassing concentration in physics and biology, with additional concentration in mathematics, logic and philosophy. I had a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale from graduating school, and graduated summa cum laude. Is that sufficient for you?

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.

My logical arguments are spot on; you can’t even seem to grasp when an argument is about form, which is the fundamental factor in logical arguments. The ASSUMPTIONS in the argument are not the key factors - THE FORM of the argument is the key factor. This has been known for thousands of years.

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.

No, it doesn’t. It indicates that it is a strong probability that we haven’t known enough to change it.

Look, mankind has been doing mathematics in some form for 30,000 years, as well as various forms of physics for at least that long. Based on your argument, since there was 30,000 years of data that the human body couldn’t travel faster than the speed of sound there is no way it could happen, right? After all, the preponderance of data says so.

And yet it happened. Showing that this form of argument is not a valid form. It only provides an indication, NOT a valid conclusion.

You CONTINUE to use an invalid form of an inductive argument to reach an invalid conclusion and then claim it must be true. Don’t you think people used to think that it was impossible to surpass the speed of sound?

That’s just the data alone; we’re not even considering data concerning what happens to the chromosomes when the cell divides, etc.

I’ve considered it. It’s been shown that telomerase therapy can reverse signs of aging. The question is much less whether it can impact aging, but rather what potential side effects are there (like - does it “encourage” cancer?).

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.

And then you say “and none of them lived over 130 so there must be a maximum.” That’s ASSUMING a maximum, it hasn’t been proven.

Now, is there some reason to have assumed that up till recently? Yes. Did it make sense to assume it until recently? Yes. But when the fundamental knowledge starts changing, assumptions need to be critically reviewed.

 

[kbachler]

Reply part 3

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

Well “Ace”, I’ve demonstrated on several occasions in this thread that the form of your argument is incorrect. Most of the time you didn’t understand the example and made some off topic comment about the TOPIC rather than focusing on the FORM. That means that there’s some evidence that you aren’t understanding this even though its been pointed out numerous times now, and that indicates that the likelihood of you nabbing an “A” in logic would be low.

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.

Again, this claims are incorrect. First, its false that 100% of the data supports your contention. Disease have shown changes in human aging, so there is no reason to expect that humans always age at a given rate and have a maximum. Second, its been shown that human tissue can live apparently indefinitely. Third, its been shown that animal aging can be impacted by factors as simple as diet and exercise, as well as other kinds of therapy including telomerase therapy and gene therapy. So how is it that with all this evidence that is counter to what you claim, you say that your claim has 100% of the evidence?

Second, EVEN IF the claim were true, the FORM of your argument isn’t valid.

Got it? Claims incorrect, argument form incorrect. Basically EVERYTHING about your argument is incorrect.

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.

The statement that 100% of the data doesn’t support the idea the aging can be treated like a disease and that there are significant possible gains in longevity through such an approach is incorrect. It simply isn’t true that 100% of the data supports such a position, and I’ve repeated shown why.

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

And with that, you immediately counter your own claim that 100% of the data supports it. Don’t you see how ridiculous this is?

 

[kbachler]

Hi kbachler,

Not sure what to make of this post. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Elaborating? Just curious in case you were trying to make a point I missed.

Thanks!

I was saying that there was is sufficient evidence posted in this thread to point out that Overpopulation is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Based on some comments in this thread, I wonder if some people understand what overpopulation as an issue even means. The argument that since civilization X located in region Y grew to a point that they overused their resources and created too much waste, and then saw their population drop as a result of lack of food, disease, etc. until it reached a steady state isn’t really an argument that overpopulation is not an issue, although some people seem to think otherwise.

A significant problem here is that Catholics as a group are hypersensitive to discussion on overpopulation because it is constantly thrown in their collective faces as an argument for birth control. This is likely the reason for the question to begin with - because we’d rather be able to deny that an issue exists so that we don’t have to defend our faith against this argument.

Factually, there are already significant issues in terms of population in the world. That’s the reality. There is POTENTIAL for the issue to become significantly more pressing if current research in longevity is successful (a secondary and unnecessary but not unimportant part of the argument.) But this secondary argument is not necessary for there to be a problem already, and to get so sidetracked on that one issue is craziness.w

Rather than get sidetracked on such things, it is more honest to focus on the likelihood that either our faith will have to re-examine whether there is room for change on some issues relating to birth control, OR as a faith we need to advocate and push for new ways of obtaining the needed resources for mankind.

Disingenuous arguments that don’t “get real” don’t do much for me.

 

[JimG]

This thread still has legs? Wow!

Is there really anybody left who thinks that global fertility trends are going to remain above replacement indefinitely such that extraordinary efforts need to be enacted to reduce the number of babies people have? Seriously?

Even the famously Malthusian folks at the UN population division have acknowledged that the global peak population is in sight and that we face a decline afterwards. There is still debate about how steep that decline will be, but very few demographers of any repute still predict indefinite TFRs above replacement level on a global basis.

Yes, it’s true that the current agricultural system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, but we aren’t exactly about to run out. As they get more scarce, oil will go up gradually and food will too. But we can adjust to that. We’ve just gotten spoiled by cheap oil making everything so cheap. Ever seen a picture of nighttime Earth from space? The amount of wasteful lighting alone is probably enough to power global agriculture (the tractors) and just as effective (if more expensive) means are out there for fertilizing. Oil isn’t just fluid in a tank. As it gets scarce, the price will go up gradually enough for us to adjust, economize and innovate. The peak oil guys have been crying wolf for decades and it never comes true.

Yes, global fertility rates are on their way down. After so many decades of being bombarded by the mythical population bomb, I’m afraid that we will be in the midst of a global depopulation crisis before anyone notices or thinks to take countermeasures. The end result will be declining economic activity and a no-growth world economy for many decades to come.

 

[kbachler]

Simple…My opinions reside in reality, not fantasy. This planet is filled with every possible type of person you can imagine: From people that do not take care of themselves, to people that live perfect lives in terms of health. Yet 100% of the data indicate a lifespan below a certain age.

WarriorMonk in 1500:
Simple…My opinions reside in reality, not fantasy. This planet is filled with every possible type of transportation vehicle you can imagine: From horses, to chariots, to ships Yet 100% of the data indicates that we cannot travel at 100 mph. 100% of the data indicates we cannot fly. 100% of the data indicates we cannot travel for extended periods below the ocean. 100% of the data indicates that we cannot travel to the Moon or to another planet.

Once again - the FORM of your argument is not valid. You cannot insist that something cannot be done based on this form.

Secondarily, your claim of 100% of the data is a false claim. There is evidence that people age at different rates, and therefore the possibility that the rate can be slowed and age extended. There is evidence that diet and exercise can change the rate of aging in people and in animals, and therefore there is evidence that the rate of aging can be slowed and life extended. There is evidence that esoteric therapies, such as telomerase and DNA therapy might radically change human aging because they have done so in other animals. So your claim of 100% of the evidence is incorrect, and in fact obviously so.

 

[kbachler]

Yes, global fertility rates are on their way down. After so many decades of being bombarded by the mythical population bomb, I’m afraid that we will be in the midst of a global depopulation crisis before anyone notices or thinks to take countermeasures. The end result will be declining economic activity and a no-growth world economy for many decades to come.

Do the math. If the entire world went to a perfect replacement rate instantaneously right now (which hasn’t happened) population would continue to increase for decades.

 

[Rau]

Yes, global fertility rates are on their way down. After so many decades of being bombarded by the mythical population bomb, I’m afraid that we will be in the midst of a global depopulation crisis before anyone notices or thinks to take countermeasures. The end result will be declining economic activity and a no-growth world economy for many decades to come.

This may be all true, but I note the trend of declining population in many countries is in the context of widespread use of artificial birth control. One wonders how populations would have trended absent ABC? Would mastery of NFP see the world match population to manageable levels, or would the natural brakes on population (disease, starvation, wars, etc) have played their parts?

 

[AshJade]

Overpopulation isn’t the problem, poverty is the problem.

 

[Nelka]

You could easily fit another 500 million in America, not to mention Australia.