Overpopulation thread: how many planets does your lifestyle require?

[flyingfish]

Hey, the burden of proof lies with the alarmist. You should do the research yourself. It’s not hard to find. Unfortunately, the internet isn’t the best source, but you could google any number of terms to get some background, from “Julian Simon” to “Overpopulation” to “environmental alarmist” or “skeptical environmentalist.”

I thought that given your 12 years education/employment in the field you’d know of some studies without having to do the research.

The research that I’ve done contradicts what you say.

Like you keep claiming that modern farming techniques don’t deplete the soil, cause it to become salty etc. Everything I read (including the national geographic article quoted a few posts above) says otherwise. Do you have access to anything that supports your position?

I mean, you claim that hydroponics can feed our growing population. How about a paper that studied the costs of hydroponics and whether it can be implemented in such a way that all the world’s people can be fed.

Likewise for the technologies you claim exist today that can provide all the world’s people with a lifestyle like our own. It’s not just about whether a technology exists, but how much resources its use requires. We have the technology to send every human being to Mars too, but in terms of the resources we have available to us today we cannot.

As for the burden of proof, both “sides” are making claims.

If you have access to academic journals, I could dig up my old notes and provide references. I could provide references to my textbooks and other supporting books, if that would help you. I could refer you to professors and scientists. What would you most prefer? I’ll see if I can find a little time to provide some, in between more important things like fixing up my house to prepare for rent and looking for a different job.

I have access to academic journals, so if it’s not too much trouble I would prefer studies.

 

[Jennifer_G]

3.8. I moved everything down to the minimum (or maximum recycling/renewable energy - basically living off the land) and still got 3.1.

 

[Bluegoat]

3.8. I moved everything down to the minimum (or maximum recycling/renewable energy - basically living off the land) and still got 3.1.

Interesting, it might be informative to ask the makers of the quiz about it.

Renewable energy doesn’t always mean living off the land though. Wind turbines, for example, are made out of metal, among other things, and are manufactured. Thus they have high embodied energy - it takes oil to make a wind turbine. So even renewables can vary quite a bit in their efficiency.

I wonder if the quiz is just not designed for people who really live at the 1 earth level? THere can’t be many around in North America.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t think recycling, reducing my consumption of meat, and believing that maybe we should use things like solar power instead of drilling, drilling, drilling all the time makes me a Communist…

Seriously, even the Pope has said we need to take care of the environment. I guess Papa Ben is a Communist?

Personally, I think it’s just as dangerous when we tell people that the only way to be Catholic is to pretend we never left the 50’s, that they have to be Republican or at least politically conservative, and that modernity in all its forms is wrong. If people find it helps them to follow Church teachings, that’s fine, but it doesn’t help the rest of us and it turns the faith instituted by Jesus into a bunch of rules and legalism. Which is what He warned against.

Follow God and take care of all things because He gave them to you. Including the planet and the poorest.

Even the poorest? What about Grandma? Your unborn child? The lame and the sick? They’ll be the first to go.

We could do far, far worse than returning to the solid and God-fearing values of the 1950s.

Remember ancient history (the 1970s)?

And Zero Population Growth?

Let’s go back even further. Margaret Sanger and her abortion eugenics program. Or maybe the Nazis, or the marxists.

All in the name of saving ‘the planet.’ Some people need to learn that there is a difference between stewardship and statism.

Save-the-planet always goes hand in hand with eugenics. Always. It is the gateway ‘drug.’

There are now advocates in THIS country, under THIS hideous health ‘care’ bill, who say that abortion rights should include people up to two years of age. Father Mitch Pacwa mentioned it in yesterday’s EWTN homily.

We are not overstating the dangers of this worship-Gaia madness. Save souls, not the planet.

 

[Calliso]

Even the poorest? What about Grandma? Your unborn child? The lame and the sick? They’ll be the first to go.

We could do far, far worse than returning to the solid and God-fearing values of the 1950s.

Remember ancient history (the 1970s)?

And Zero Population Growth?

Let’s go back even further. Margaret Sanger and her abortion eugenics program. Or maybe the Nazis, or the marxists.

All in the name of saving ‘the planet.’ Some people need to learn that there is a difference between stewardship and statism.

Save-the-planet always goes hand in hand with eugenics. Always. It is the gateway ‘drug.’

There are now advocates in THIS country, under THIS hideous health ‘care’ bill, who say that abortion rights should include people up to two years of age. Father Mitch Pacwa mentioned it in yesterday’s EWTN homily.

We are not overstating the dangers of this worship-Gaia madness. Save souls, not the planet.

While I agree we can go to far with concern for the planet…you have to remember this is the only planet we have to live on. We mess this place up we have no where else to go. So it is probably in our best interest to take good care of it!

 

[WinterWH]

I read somewhere that the entire Earth’s population would fit into an area the size of Texas.

No danger of overpopulation. Overeating, maybe. But not overpopulation.

 

[Bluegoat]

I read somewhere that the entire Earth’s population would fit into an area the size of Texas.

No danger of overpopulation. Overeating, maybe. But not overpopulation.

It depends on how close you pack em in. I wouldn’t want to live in Texas under those circumstances.

 

[j1akey]

WinterWH:

I read somewhere that the entire Earth’s population would fit into an area the size of Texas.

No danger of overpopulation. Overeating, maybe. But not overpopulation.

I know this is going to be rude but this is a pretty idiotic thing to say.

The problems of overpopultion aren’t just about having enough land to stuff people into. It’s also about resource consumption including food, WATER (which is already in short supply in some areas), and access to raw building materials.

Texas is 268,601 square miles, the population of the earth is about 6.7 billion people right now. That’s 24,944 people for every square mile of land in Texas (if I’m not a complete hack at math). So yes the population of the earth could probably physically fit into texas but I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to live in a place like that. That’s only living, that’s not places to work, or buy food or roads or any of the infrastructure that goes along with actually supporting the population.

I know some catholics don’t want to admit it but we need to cut back on population growth on this planet. If it wasn’t for contraception we’d have more population than I think we’d know what to do with it at this point already.

You say contraception is evil? Letting people starve because we don’t have the food to feed them or the resources to house them is more evil. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that hunger is a daily concern for 13.8% of Americans. We can’t feed who we already have apparently so lets just keep having more babies!

The population of the U.S. tripled during the 20th century, but the U.S. consumption of raw materials increased 17-fold.
The worlds population grows by 76,000,000 people per year.
About 11% of the landmass is farmable without having to be improved in some way.

 

[WinterWH]

We have floods; so there is plenty of water, but it is not being managed properly.

To manage water, you need to collect it. But dams are being demolished.

I have heard of politicians refusing to approve needed water supply projects. The money is there and the local community wants the water, but lawsuits and other dedicated obstructionists have stopped the water resources projects. In other situations, waste water treatment projects have literally thrown perfectly good water into the ocean instead of using it for ground water recharge.

In other cases, water is wasted from leaking supply pipes. Those losses can be stopped with diligence by the water suppliers (which usually are government agencies).

So I don’t think that the claims that water is in short supply are valid.

 

[WinterWH]

I read somewhere that the entire Earth’s population would fit into an area the size of Texas.

No danger of overpopulation. Overeating, maybe. But not overpopulation.

overpopulation.com/articles/2001/could-the-entire-world-live-in-texas-part-ii/

Hoboken, NJ’s population density is around 30,000 per square mile.

absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hoboken,_New_Jersey

Apparently, they don’t have high rises the way Manhattan has high rises.

 

[dulcissima]

It depends on how close you pack em in. I wouldn’t want to live in Texas under those circumstances.

In the book that I am currently reading, Creating a World Without Poverty, the author, Muhammad Yunus, asserts that if the population of the entire world was to be put into the United States that the population density would still be less than that of Bangladesh. That seems to indicate to me that we have quite a way to go before we are overpopulated.

 

[mpi]

Even the poorest? What about Grandma? Your unborn child? The lame and the sick? They’ll be the first to go.

We could do far, far worse than returning to the solid and God-fearing values of the 1950s.

Remember ancient history (the 1970s)?

And Zero Population Growth?

Let’s go back even further. Margaret Sanger and her abortion eugenics program. Or maybe the Nazis, or the marxists.

All in the name of saving ‘the planet.’ Some people need to learn that there is a difference between stewardship and statism.

Save-the-planet always goes hand in hand with eugenics. Always. It is the gateway ‘drug.’

There are now advocates in THIS country, under THIS hideous health ‘care’ bill, who say that abortion rights should include people up to two years of age. Father Mitch Pacwa mentioned it in yesterday’s EWTN homily.

We are not overstating the dangers of this worship-Gaia madness. Save souls, not the planet.

Your post is brilliant! There are Gaia-worshippers in the Catholic church that need to be converted by our wisdom. These people are lost and their views are disgusting.

 

[WinterWH]

Another approach would be to merely defer all abortions until the baby is 19 years old. At that point, the baby would be given a knife and could fight it out with the abortionist himself, in case the baby didn’t want to be aborted retroactively.

 

[WinterWH]

Population density per square kilometer:

photius.com/rankings/geography/population_density_persons_per_sq_km_2008_0.html

Hoboken’s metric population density is around 12,000 people per square kilometer.

Bangladesh’s metric population density is around 1,100 people per square kilometer.

Iceland is at 3. And they have so many hot springs that they get free electricity from geothermal energy … and hot tubs.

 

[Sheeniac]

I didn’t bother to take the quiz because such things are always biased.

I did want to comment on the ‘eat local’ aspect. There was a some investigation down into the matter by a magazine I get (can’t recall which one), but they determined in some cases, eating local is not the best choice. Due to volume, the shipping per unit may be cheaper/cleaner in massive shipments of items from far away versus a farmer loading up a small truck to bring to the farmer’s market.

Regardless, I prefer local because I like my food grown in the US (or Canada).

 

[Bluegoat]

In the book that I am currently reading, Creating a World Without Poverty, the author, Muhammad Yunus, asserts that if the population of the entire world was to be put into the United States that the population density would still be less than that of Bangladesh. That seems to indicate to me that we have quite a way to go before we are overpopulated.

Have you seen how crowded the people in Bangladesh are???!!! It actually causes them a lot of problems.

Also, in these scenarios, food would have to be produced elsewhere. If everyone was stuck in Texas, there wouldn’t be enough land for much agriculture. So it’s a bit misleading if people are implying that we could make due with only the land in Texas and let things go wild everywhere else.

As for water, which a pp mentioned. I don’t think anyone disputes that many of the worlds water problems are related to our use. Household use, use in agriculture, mining, all take a real toll. And in the case of the agriculture and mining, not only do they use a lot of water, but they contaminate resivoirs and water tables, making them dangerous for everyone else.

But there are many places where local water problems do exist. In many of the drier areas of the US, especially where there are a lot of people or agricultural activity, underground water supplies are being diminished at an alarming rate - enough so that people alive now will likely see them empty if changes aren’t made.

And are the changes being made - well, often not, I’m afraid. Government seems afraid to cross the lobby groups or regulate too much, industry doesn’t seem to care as long as they make money in the next quarter, and individuals just don’t see the need, or think they are doing enough.

Dams are not always the answer - they cause as many problems as they solve in many cases - after all, they don’t create more water, they just change it’s location.

And the US is not the worst off - countries in the Middle East are having to resort to desalination to fill their need for water.

 

[WinterWH]

Have you seen how crowded the people in Bangladesh are???!!! It actually causes them a lot of problems.

Also, in these scenarios, food would have to be produced elsewhere. If everyone was stuck in Texas, there wouldn’t be enough land for much agriculture. So it’s a bit misleading if people are implying that we could make due with only the land in Texas and let things go wild everywhere else.

As for water, which a pp mentioned. I don’t think anyone disputes that many of the worlds water problems are related to our use. Household use, use in agriculture, mining, all take a real toll. And in the case of the agriculture and mining, not only do they use a lot of water, but they contaminate resivoirs and water tables, making them dangerous for everyone else.

But there are many places where local water problems do exist. In many of the drier areas of the US, especially where there are a lot of people or agricultural activity, underground water supplies are being diminished at an alarming rate - enough so that people alive now will likely see them empty if changes aren’t made.

And are the changes being made - well, often not, I’m afraid. Government seems afraid to cross the lobby groups or regulate too much, industry doesn’t seem to care as long as they make money in the next quarter, and individuals just don’t see the need, or think they are doing enough.

Dams are not always the answer - they cause as many problems as they solve in many cases - after all, they don’t create more water, they just change it’s location.

And the US is not the worst off - countries in the Middle East are having to resort to desalination to fill their need for water.

One of the leaders in desert agriculture (and water resource management) is Israel … the problem is that the innovative solutions developed by Israel are not permitted to be copied … because of political correctness. Some folks would rather die of thirst than adopt Israeli-developed methods. [And the technology isn’t even exotic; often it is very low cost.]

A lot of water is just lost due to evaporation or being allowed to run into the ocean.

Dams catch the water and store it for when it is needed.

No one is advocating that we move the world’s population to Texas. It’s just to illustrate a point that the world is not overpopulated.

 

[Bluegoat]

One of the leaders in desert agriculture (and water resource management) is Israel … the problem is that the innovative solutions developed by Israel are not permitted to be copied … because of political correctness. Some folks would rather die of thirst than adopt Israeli-developed methods. [And the technology isn’t even exotic; often it is very low cost.]

A lot of water is just lost due to evaporation or being allowed to run into the ocean.

Dams catch the water and store it for when it is needed.

No one is advocating that we move the world’s population to Texas. It’s just to illustrate a point that the world is not overpopulated.

Israels agricultural activities are controversial even within Israel. Water is used for irrigation of crops for export, while Israelis have to desalinate, which is expensive and has environmental consequences, and the Palestinians don’t get enough to depend on for their daily lives.

I realize that Texas is an illustration. My point is that it is not a very accurate one if it doesn’t take into account the land needed to produce food.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

While I agree we can go to far with concern for the planet…you have to remember this is the only planet we have to live on. We mess this place up we have no where else to go. So it is probably in our best interest to take good care of it!

The green movement is founded on eugenics and human arrogance. It will always lead to anti-Catholic legislation.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to ‘live green.’

 

[fultonfish]

It’s obvious that overusing resources are the problem, rather than overpopulation.

I could not care less how many kids someone has but I do care when people treat the planet like their own personal trashcan. Kind of reminds me what we humans tend to do when God gives us a gift: throw it away.

Did God give us the earth so that we could destroy all forests, pollute the oceans, and fill the air with smog, just so we can drive fancy cars and live in big houses? Or did God give us the earth for us to dwell in and to share with our brothers and sisters, to take care of and keep it beautiful, even if it means we live a bit more simply?

The Pope said we have a moral obligation to take care of the planet. I wouldn’t dare try to be more Catholic than he is.

Neither overusing resources NOR overpopulation is/are the problem.

Poor countries are poor only because they have totalitarian governments.

It is impossible for the people in poor countries to make any kind of economic progress when there is crony economics and the thug-friends of the dictator take whatever they earn away from them.

What they need are property-rights. Now, they have none.

Look at the poorest countries of Africa; they have great natural resources. Uranium. Oil. Diamonds. Everything grows there … three growing seasons.

Many of those people work hard to escape … and where do they move to? To the United States where they can keep some of the fruits of their hard work.

What the United States should do is to support pro-democracy movements instead of supporting dictators like Chavez and Castro. Zimbwabwe used to be a very prosperous country, but decades of dictatorial mismanagement has caused the country to become an impoverished thug-ocracy.