Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

[Rau]

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

And this you “know” how?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

False. Jump off of a cliff in a head down position and your speed will exceed that.

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.

100% of the data indicates that our biology will not allow us to do that. However, we can do that with artificial machines. And, BTW, we can make machines that will last longer than we do.

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

You continue to argue FORM. Here’s you problem. You are attempting to use form to dismiss all of the data contrary to your POV, and in particular the data that sets the parameters for your argument. You have not one single instance of data to demonstrate that I am incorrect…none…yet you dismiss everything I say. It is impossible to have a sane and rational discussion with such an individual.

Secondarily, your claim of 100% of the data is a false claim.

So it is true that we have examples of 130 year old people? Please cite the source, I will study the data, and gladly admit I am wrong.

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.

Extended under the maximum? Absolutely true, as I have previously stated.

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.

I’ve already specifically noted that it will take structural changes to the body to extend life beyond the mid-120 range, such as natural or artificial genetic mutations. So your claim that 100% of my evidence is wrong is not only incorrect, but demonstrates that you are simply not reading and understanding the content of my posts, but only listening to yourself.

 

[GEddie]

False. Jump off of a cliff in a head down position and your speed will exceed that.

Only if the cliff were high enough.

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.

100% of the data indicates that our biology will not allow us to do that. However, we can do that with artificial machines. And, BTW, we can make machines that will last longer than we do.

Not without human maintenance. Try starting a car that has been sitting at the curb for several years.

But it will run for decades if not more, given assiduous maintenance.

Likewise, if science could monitor all parts of a human soma, and repair the parts as they begin to fail, that soma would continue to move and breathe indefinitely. No need to futz with the genes. But such monitoring and repair techniques are not ours yet.

The disadvantage is that unlike the car, once the human soma has fully failed (ie, died), no restoration is possible. This imposes a time limit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Only if the cliff were high enough.

That’s true, but the claim was an all-encompassing “cannot,” which would be a false premise. As a side note, people have survived such falls, including much higher falls out of planes…not that I would recommend attempting such a feat.

Likewise, if science could monitor all parts of a human soma, and repair the parts as they begin to fail, that soma would continue to move and breathe indefinitely. No need to futz with the genes. But such monitoring and repair techniques are not ours yet.

That repair would have to involve repairing the majority, if not all, of cells in various systems, at the chromosomal level. IMHO, that makes no sense; it would be easier to simply redesign the genes.

The disadvantage is that unlike the car, once the human soma has fully failed (ie, died),no restoration is possible. This imposes a time limit.

Exactly, and we know what that time frame is.

 

[smichhertz]

Well, I can’t speak for everyone on this thread, but for me in particular, overpopulation implies a degradation of the human person.

Let’s do a theoretical:

1 unit of food = amount of food to feed one person for one day.

If 100 units of food are produced in an area, and there are 120 people living in that area. So only 100 people can be reasonably fed, and 20 will starve.

Overpopulation Solution: There are too many people. Reduce the number to 100.

My take: Human life is invaluable. So much as one person starving to death is unacceptable. the 100 must sacrifice and eat less so that all 120 can survive on a less than healthy diet.

Obviously, the fact that starvation and hunger are realities in this world shows there is a problem. I just don’t like the idea of degrading the human person, or proposing solutions that amount to “there are too many people”.

Make sense?

 

[GEddie]

That repair would have to involve repairing the majority, if not all, of cells in various systems, at the chromosomal level. IMHO, that makes no sense; it would be easier to simply redesign the genes.

Except that changing genes, while helpful to the progeny, does nothing to help the currently alive to stay that way.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Except that changing genes, while helpful to the progeny, does nothing to help the currently alive to stay that way.

Naturally, it depends on what is actually being done. Replacing all DNA/RNA with undamaged versions could theoretically make the person “younger.” Now the reality of that occurring, or even the technology to do so, that’s another story.

 

[kbachler]

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?

The thread hasn’t had legs for a long time.

The issue isn’t just the dependence on fossil fuels, or the rate of agriculture, etc… The issue is what those things do to the environment overall and how do we control it. Operating the population at some high amount while we do that is likely not the wisest alternative.

 

[kbachler]

False. Jump off of a cliff in a head down position and your speed will exceed that.

The scenario implied safely. Don’t be a toad.

100% of the data indicates that our biology will not allow us to do that. However, we can do that with artificial machines. And, BTW, we can make machines that will last longer than we do.

False statistic claimed. Next.

You continue to argue FORM. Here’s you problem. You are attempting to use form to dismiss all of the data contrary to your POV, and in particular the data that sets the parameters for your argument.

Arguing form doesn’t dismiss any data. It simply shows your argument to be incorrect.

You have not one single instance of data to demonstrate that I am incorrect…none…yet you dismiss everything I say. It is impossible to have a sane and rational discussion with such an individual.

I’ve provided several pieces of data that show that your statements are not correct.

So it is true that we have examples of 130 year old people? Please cite the source, I will study the data, and gladly admit I am wrong.

The Bible.

But your point is not relevant anyway, as already shown.

Extended under the maximum? Absolutely true, as I have previously stated.

1. You haven’t shown there is a maximum. A maximum is assumed by you.

As noted, it doesn’t take structural changes. You’re not listening. And as noted, your claim about 100% of the data supporting you is a false claim, so now you’re either being foolish or lying. Take your pick.

I’m glad you aren’t researching ways to improve health. Based on your analysis, it would be impossible and pointless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[manualman]

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?

I lose track of my overpopulation threads, but I’m pretty sure we covered this earlier here. The field of demography has long noticed that populations that have completed the transition to industrialized, urbanized economics trend towards replacement TFR after a few generations. This was the case LONG before the pill or latex condom hit the market. One can theorize about how this came to be (probably a combination of later marriage ages and use of primitive NFP or “rythym” to space out children more), but the historical data is out there to be reviewed. It supports my contention above. The introduction of widespread ABC is when industrialized societies started to have significantly BELOW replacement TFRs.

WarriorMonk and I have butted heads on the issue, but I tend to take his side on the human longevity issue. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s impossible, but so far the idea is science fiction, not science reality. Some science fiction eventually comes true (Jules Verne’s Nautilus, Star Trek’s communicators, Jetson’s instant food cookers). Some are rather elusive (FTL space travel, teleporters, fusion reactors, artificial gravity). I suspect defying age will be in the elusive category pretty much forever. Just my opinion, mind you…

 

[LittleDavid]

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

But everyone would be living like downtown New York City, and not everyone wants to live like that. Not to mention the devastating effects on wildlife. I notice you didn’t volunteer to take 500 million where you live.

 

[manualman]

But everyone would be living like downtown New York City, and not everyone wants to live like that. Not to mention the devastating effects on wildlife. I notice you didn’t volunteer to take 500 million where you live.

I’m guessing you take airplanes on your vacations. Do yourself a favor: See the USA from an automobile or train window some time. You’ll be astounded how empty this country really is. I don’t pretend to know the exact number of additional people we can comfortably fit in, but there really isn’t any need to. The future of declining populations is already in sight and anybody who says North America is overpopulated today either never gets out or is blind.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The scenario implied safely. Don’t be a toad.

People usually start with the name calling when they realize there ideas and support are deficient. It’s a primitive form of self protection.

BTW, that same gravitational effect is use for space travel. I guess those people are toads too.

False statistic claimed. Next.

If your argument ignores parameters already established by scientific research, you have no argument to begin with regardless of “form.”

Of course I can’t argue against your statistics, because they simply don’t exist.

Arguing form doesn’t dismiss any data. It simply shows your argument to be incorrect.

Yes once again you don’t have a single instance of data to support your argument. Is that an example of the “complete scientific research” you refer to.

Your argument is lies purely in the theoretical realm.

I’ve provided several pieces of data that show that your statements are not correct.

Actually you have not. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that any human being has lived to beyond the accepted maximum age for a human being. Furthermore, you are referencing animals with a different genetic makeup. Is you argument that genetics are irrelevant, and what is true for one gene set is also true for another gene set?

1. You haven’t shown there is a maximum. A maximum is assumed by you.

You assume that is my opinion. Actually, it is not. It is the opinion of others. The first time I even heard of this was back in 1988, in a seminar given by my chiropractor. I kept hearing the same thing in college seminars, scientific literature I was reading, various health related books and journals, and even a book on the scientific basis of the stories behind the X Files. The basis is the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division. You argument is not with me on this point; it’s against the scientists that have studied this.

1. Lifespan has been extended, period.

Under the accepted maximum, based on the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division. Period. You, nor any else, has demonstrated otherwise. That’s science; that’s reality.

As noted, it doesn’t take structural changes. You’re not listening. And as noted, your claim about 100% of the data supporting you is a false claim, so now you’re either being foolish or lying. Take your pick.

I’m glad you aren’t researching ways to improve health. Based on your analysis, it would be impossible and pointless.

You are making a notable number of erroneous assumptions. Besides foolish and lying, there is a third option: you’re clueless.

I am most definitely familiar with matters pertaining to health, and live what I preach on the matter. I’ll leave it at the, unless you want me to continue.

 

[Rau]

I lose track of my overpopulation threads, but I’m pretty sure we covered this earlier here. The field of demography has long noticed that populations that have completed the transition to industrialized, urbanized economics trend towards replacement TFR after a few generations. This was the case LONG before the pill or latex condom hit the market. One can theorize about how this came to be (probably a combination of later marriage ages and use of primitive NFP or “rythym” to space out children more), but the historical data is out there to be reviewed. It supports my contention above.

Can you point to anything online on this point I can review?

 

[manualman]

Can you point to anything online on this point I can review?

Search “Demographic Transition Theory” online for a synopsis. Here is a good introduction: uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm

While it is widely agreed in the field that stage 3 inherently involves low TFRs, demographers don’t seem to have made the connection yet between contraception and TFR rates persistently below replacement rate (2.08). That’s my own conclusion that I’ll do a serious statistical study on - as soon as I win the lottery and can quit my day job. Nobody else seems much interested in the matter. My personal theory is that absent cultural acceptance and commercial availability of the pill and latex condom, we’d have TFR’s of about 2.1 in the industrialized world. WITH those things, it appears from the data that long term industrialized nations can expect TFRs to be about 1.6.

The UN population division website is a wealth of info as well. Another eye opening bit of data is the CIA world factbook. Search “CIA global fertility rates.” Quickly visible from that site is that of all the first world nations on earth only Israel has a TFR above long term replacement rate. Weird, eh?

 

[LittleDavid]

I’m guessing you take airplanes on your vacations. Do yourself a favor: See the USA from an automobile or train window some time. You’ll be astounded how empty this country really is. I don’t pretend to know the exact number of additional people we can comfortably fit in, but there really isn’t any need to. The future of declining populations is already in sight and anybody who says North America is overpopulated today either never gets out or is blind.

Please realize it takes quite a bit of “empty country” to support each person on this planet. Do yourself a favor: The next time you are seeing the USA from an automobile or train window sometime, notice that the land that cows need to graze on, and pigs, and chickens, you name the animal(2,972 species), and oh by the way the plants that produce the oxygen you breathe(all 18,743 species). It takes “empty country”, and a lot of it to sustain all 313.9 million people in the U.S.(2012-U.S. Census)not to mention the world. Go to google and type in “Population of the USA”, if the U.S. population were cut in half tonight, we would have the same number of people we had in the U.S. in 1950. Was in China 3 years ago(Shanghai-pop.13million then), people in Wal-Mart type stores shoulder to shoulder. The stores were 3 stories tall to accomodate all the people. (Not the USA you say, I know, but a picture of what it could be.) Overpopulation is not a myth.

 

[Nelka]

But everyone would be living like downtown New York City, and not everyone wants to live like that. Not to mention the devastating effects on wildlife. I notice you didn’t volunteer to take 500 million where you live.

500 million extra people in England would be some squeeze.

However I would take them if abortion was banned completely.

Just out of interest. England has 152.51mi². Your area size is 3794100mi² and that means you should have 578,638,191 people in your country to match out density. Is there any chance you could big a huge city somewhere to fit the extra people in?

To be serious I hear people talk about overpopulation to use an excuse for abortion.

Does anyone know the density of the international space station? Is it more dense than Monaco?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Please realize it takes quite a bit of “empty country” to support each person on this planet.

Exactly.

This point often gets utterly ignored by those that argue against “overpopulation.” It is not the amount of land that is available, or that the Earth’s population can be forced into Texas, but rather the amount of land necessary to support each person. There actually isn’t enough land available right now to support the current Earth’s population. To make up the difference, we must use cheap fossil fuel resources to force production increases. It’s going to be a really bad day when fossil fuel resources become scarce and expensive.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I lose track of my overpopulation threads, but I’m pretty sure we covered this earlier here. The field of demography has long noticed that populations that have completed the transition to industrialized, urbanized economics trend towards replacement TFR after a few generations. This was the case LONG before the pill or latex condom hit the market. One can theorize about how this came to be (probably a combination of later marriage ages and use of primitive NFP or “rythym” to space out children more), but the historical data is out there to be reviewed. It supports my contention above. The introduction of widespread ABC is when industrialized societies started to have significantly BELOW replacement TFRs.

I don’t exclude the possibility that this is by natural (God’s) design. Urbanization/industrialization is not healthy for the planet, and interestingly enough, TFR decrease in such situations.

 

[kbachler]

People usually start with the name calling when they realize there ideas and support are deficient. It’s a primitive form of self protection.

There was no name calling.

BTW, that same gravitational effect is use for space travel. I guess those people are toads too.

Again, ignoring what I said, which was that “safe travel” was implied. Gravitation is of course used in many kinds of travel that are relatively safe. Your example was not safe. Your response is disingenuous, argumentative, and intellectually dishonest.

Next.

If your argument ignores parameters already established by scientific research, you have no argument to begin with regardless of “form.”

Sorry. ALL scientists, researchers, mathematicians, logicians, philosophers, etc. know that the FORM of argument comes first. The scientific method requires FORM. It doesn’t matter what data you have and how good or bad it is, if you violate form.

Again, I would refer you to ANY introductory book on logic, or even a good algebra text that covers logic. I would refer you to ANY introductory book that covers scientific method.

I also again suggest you read “Personal Knowledge” by Polyani.

We hear routinely about studies that have collected all sorts of interesting data - but that aren’t useful because FORM was violated.

This is fundamental, and is not debated by any competent researcher, scientist, logician, mathematician, etc.

Next.

Of course I can’t argue against your statistics, because they simply don’t exist.

False statement, strawman. The studies are easily available online. Do your own research, its not up to me to do it for you.

Next.

Yes once again you don’t have a single instance of data to support your argument. Is that an example of the “complete scientific research” you refer to.

See above. Your argument is repetitive and argumentative.

Next.

Your argument is lies purely in the theoretical realm.

Already demonstrated to be false. Again argumentative and repetitive. Next.

Actually you have not. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that any human being has lived to beyond the accepted maximum age for a human being.

1. You haven’t shown that there is an accepted maximum age.
2. If you are a believing Catholic, those views may well contradict your views on 1.
3. As already shown, the information you insist upon is irrelevant.

Next.

Furthermore, you are referencing animals with a different genetic makeup. Is you argument that genetics are irrelevant, and what is true for one gene set is also true for another gene set?

I’m insisting (and so are researchers) that there is enough commonality to be relevant. Moreover, some of what I referenced was with respect to humans, I guess you ignored that.

Next.

You assume that is my opinion. Actually, it is not. It is the opinion of others.

Irrespective of whether or not others hold it, you’ve stated it as your own.

Next.

The first time I even heard of this was back in 1988, in a seminar given by my chiropractor.

OH! There is a reliable source. You’ll discount people looked upon as some of the top researchers on aging, but you’ll listen to your chiropractor.

That alone is enough to end this “debate.”

I kept hearing the same thing in college seminars, scientific literature I was reading, various health related books and journals, and even a book on the scientific basis of the stories behind the X Files.

Ah yes, the scientific basis of the X-files. REAL science now!

The basis is the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division. You argument is not with me on this point; it’s against the scientists that have studied this.

I have already answered this argument. I’ve noted several times that Telomerase Therapy has been shown to reverse this concern. I’ve also noted that there are still issues with it.

Further, the more important issue is cellular damage done by metabolism itself. As I’ve already stated, BOTH in animals and humans it has been shown that diet and certain forms of exercise can reduce that damage.

Again, why bother to listen to what I tell you, when you already know you’re right because your chiropractor said so.

Under the accepted maximum, based on the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division. Period. You, nor any else, has demonstrated otherwise. That’s science; that’s reality.

Sorry - I’ve already addressed this, your facts are wrong.

Next.

You are making a notable number of erroneous assumptions. Besides foolish and lying, there is a third option: you’re clueless.

And yet on several occasions I’ve mentioned research about which you are unaware - even after I mention it. If I am clueless, that leaves you where, exactly?

I am most definitely familiar with matters pertaining to health, and live what I preach on the matter. I’ll leave it at the, unless you want me to continue.

And yet you know nothing about telomerase therapy. Interesting.

And nothing about diet for metabolic control. Interesting.

But you’re well-educated by your chiropractor. No doubt next you’ll be telling us not to have our children vaccinated.