Overpopulation?

[Sapiens]

Generally speaking, populations grow to fit their environment. Concern about overpopulation is largely hyped up to be more than it is.

Maybe you are thinking: "But, there is a limit to the number of people we can sustain on this planet."

And, of course, that's exactly the point. The reason the population has continued to increase is precisely because we haven't reached the limit to the number of people this planet can sustain. Raw population values are a red herring, whether it is 3 billion, 7 billion, 11 billion, or even 18 billion.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain

We can't predict at what point our population will stabilize. Anybody who says he can, is selling something... probably eco-friendly advice. Take good advice, but ignore bad mathematics.

It's way more than a simplistic issue of living space and food supply ... ask any competent biologist, what you'll hear is that, "density dependent phenomena will get us in the end."

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And that is the part I responded to.

You posted the opinion to which I responded.
I made it clear that it wasn't about the video (which I can't yet watch).

If you don't want responses, I advise against posting opinions.

This is just not true. Not even close to true.
We already have vastly too many humans to sustain us all at ordinary US standards. And the big challenge facing the human race is that the desperate poor, who have historically settled for bare subsistence, are starting to demand a more equitable share.
We privileged folks, mainly in the first world, are either going to share or there will be huge conflicts.

History suggests that devastating war is more likely than privileged people giving up their privilege.
Tom

History definitely supports your conclusion. Considering that only 3% of the world's population control over 90% of the world's wealth, it is a non sequitur to assume that "ordinary US standards" for human today are unsustainable. When over 90% of the worlds population reach the point where they have no shelter, food, job, clean water, power, or hope, I guarantee that the privilege class will gladly give-up everything they have to survive the fallout. I also guarantee that the "desperate poor" will no longer settle for bare subsistence.

Historically, people have closed their eyes to their own reflection, no matter how clear and simple the image may be. And like history, we seem doomed to repeat it's mistakes. Thank God, I won't be around. Don

 

[Revoltingest]

History definitely supports your conclusion. Considering that only 3% of the world's population control over 90% of the world's wealth, it is a non sequitur to assume that "ordinary US standards" for human today are unsustainable.

You say "non sequitur", but I say that it's quite relevant to consider achieving
US standards for a worldwide population. This would give us an idea of the
level of effects upon our environment if that future awaits us.
- How much land & water would be devoted to farming, fishing, housing, roads, etc?
- How much natural environment loss will we tolerate?
- How densely packed are we willing to live?
- What level of worldwide standard of living is achievable....lower or higher than in Americastan?

When over 90% of the worlds population reach the point where they have no shelter, food, job, clean water, power, or hope, I guarantee that the privilege class will gladly give-up everything they have to survive the fallout. I also guarantee that the "desperate poor" will no longer settle for bare subsistence.

Population control can avoid your nightmare scenario.
Countries should be asking themselves....
Can we really endure an increasing population when
we can't feed or care for the people we now have?
Will we be better off if we have ever more people?

Historically, people have closed their eyes to their own reflection, no matter how clear and simple the image may be. And like history, we seem doomed to repeat it's mistakes. Thank God, I won't be around. Don

We on RF are considering it right now.
Nothing will change because of our discussions, but it's better than having closed eyes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, it only makes the claim.
It doesn't provide evidence.

Um, manna from the sky, dude. Textual evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Got any examples of this actually working?

I have an example of it not:

Münster rebellion - Wikipedia - Protestants tried to establish a community of believers in Munster. It was beseiged by the expelled Prince-Bishop for a year, during which time many starved and many snuck out of the city in search of food.

Manna from the sky, Jesus from the sky, also, I have enough answers, always, for skeptics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Manna from the sky, Jesus from the sky, also, I have enough answers, always, for skeptics.

By "examples," I meant examples of it ever occurring.

Do you have any verifiable event in the last, say, thousand years when a group of believers didn't starve, even though they were out of food for long enough that they ought to have starved?

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, manna from the sky, dude. Textual evidence.

I don't know how it supports the claim, but I won't
challenge you (cuz I'm far to ignorant of the source).

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You say "non sequitur", but I say that it's quite relevant to consider achieving
US standards for a worldwide population. This would give us an idea of the
level of effects upon our environment if that future awaits us.
- How much land & water would be devoted to farming, fishing, housing, roads, etc?
- How much natural environment loss will we tolerate?
- How densely packed are we willing to live?
- What level of worldwide standard of living is achievable....lower or higher than in Americastan?

Population control can avoid your nightmare scenario.
Countries should be asking themselves....
Can we really endure an increasing population when
we can't feed or care for the people we now have?
Will we be better off if we have ever more people?

We on RF are considering it right now.
Nothing will change because of our discussions, but it's better than having closed eyes.

If the nature of being human was more than just the expression of our genes and alleles, or if history could demonstrate any successful program that did in fact control population growth, then I might share your level of optimism. But as a realist, and a purveyed of the obvious, I know that there are only two ways to control the threat of overpopulation. You either cull sections of the population(legally((wars)), illegally, or surreptitiously), or you prevent conception in the first place(physically separating the sexes, biochemical, and sterilization).

My scenario is not a nightmare. Nightmares are not real. My scenario is simply the inevitable consequences of a species who's apathy, technology, greed, and intellect, all become the source for it's own extinction. Don

 

[Revoltingest]

If the nature of being human was more than just the expression of our genes and alleles, or if history could demonstrate any successful program that did in fact control population growth, then I might share your level of optimism. But as a realist, and a purveyed of the obvious, I know that there are only two ways to control the threat of overpopulation. You either cull sections of the population(legally((wars)), illegally, or surreptitiously), or you prevent conception in the first place(physically separating the sexes, biochemical, and sterilization).

My scenario is not a nightmare. Nightmares are not real. My scenario is simply the inevitable consequences of a species who's apathy, technology, greed, and intellect, all become the source for it's own extinction. Don

Actually, I'm not optimistic that humanity will thoughtfully control population.
I expect that things will first get worse, & only when the deleterious effects
of over-population smack us in the snoot will measures be taken.
I don't even have a proposal for how to achieve it. That will be
worked out by each country in some fashion which suits them.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Actually, I'm not optimistic that humanity will thoughtfully control population.
I expect that things will first get worse, & only when the deleterious effects
of over-population smack us in the snoot will measures be taken.
I don't even have a proposal for how to achieve it. That will be
worked out by each country in some fashion which suits them.

I'm afraid that the cure will be worst than the disease itself. Don

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm afraid that the cure will be worst than the disease itself. Don

I don't think it would be worse.
But it could be very oppressive.
I'm thinking of China's policy.
We'll have to keep an eye on this for the next 100 years.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's way more than a simplistic issue of living space and food supply ... ask any competent biologist, what you'll hear is that, "density dependent phenomena will get us in the end."

Oh definitely. My colleagues and I usually put it this way......Yes, populations will eventually regulate themselves; you just don't want to be around when it happens.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't think it would be worse.
But it could be very oppressive.
I'm thinking of China's policy.
We'll have to keep an eye on this for the next 100 years.

For those on the receiving end of the solution, it will certainly be worst(i.e.,The Final Solution). For those just waiting to see what will happen, it will be far too late to make any difference. For those that still believe in man's ability to control nature's most evolutionary and hardwired of human drives, will quickly learn the difference between fact and fantasy. And, for those who believe in "Divine Intervention" as the solution, will quickly realize that the true nature of their faith will also be their final swansong. We are not immortal like the humble jellyfish. Procreation is our only hardwired purpose. Maybe there is a next stage in evolution, and we were just not invited.

At a growth rate of 1 Billion every 10 years(18 Billion people 2117), I assure you that it won't be another countries growth rate we'll be keeping an eye on. Don

 

[BilliardsBall]

By "examples," I meant examples of it ever occurring.

Do you have any verifiable event in the last, say, thousand years when a group of believers didn't starve, even though they were out of food for long enough that they ought to have starved?

I think you have confused me with an apologetics research consortium, but I've seen some programs and sermons and etc. over the years talking about provision for entire people groups.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have confused me with an apologetics research consortium,

I never thought that, but I was hoping that your opinions might have been informed by facts. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding on that point.

but I've seen some programs and sermons and etc. over the years talking about provision for entire people groups.

Provision... through prayer?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The issue is entirely in the numbers. The infrastructure necessary to support any increase in population is not based on lifestyle preferences, or the inordinate amount of human consumption and greed. It is based entirely on demand and the numbers. Put simply, the cake is finite, and eventually the pieces will be too small to share with everyone evenly. Money, greed, and lifestyle preferences have no effect on replenishing our planet's dwindling natural resources. Eventually, we all will have a taste of this abject poverty within 50-60 years. Don

Lifestyle is certainly a huge factor when those resources you mention are being used up mainly to support the Western lifestyle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But I like meat. Meat is tasty.

And necessary for your health. :0)

 

[columbus]

And necessary for your health. :0)

I don't see how a vegan diet can possibly be made optimum. But with judicious eggs and cheese, the amount of meat that's healthy is really small.
Tom

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Lifestyle is certainly a huge factor when those resources you mention are being used up mainly to support the Western lifestyle.

Lifestyle preference is indeed a factor, but for most of us, it only follows society's lead. History has proven that lifestyle preferences can and do change. From the Bourgeois to the "flower children". From the Dark Ages to the Information Age, lifestyles have always followed suit. My concern is having enough resources to supply all humans with their basic needs(food, shelter, water, clothing, and security). It is the sheer number of people that will overwhelm our available resources, not simply their desires. You have seen how people behaved during the petrol scare in the 90's. You have seen how people behaved during the YK2 computer scare. Think of this behavior, but a million times worst.

Overpopulation is based solely on the rate of procreation, not lifestyle preferences. Other than monks or priest, very few lifestyle preclude procreation. Don

 

[Sapiens]

Oh definitely. My colleagues and I usually put it this way......Yes, populations will eventually regulate themselves; you just don't want to be around when it happens.

Rarely do they actually regulate themselves, more often they are controlled by density mediated phenomena that are "outside."