In this threadChief Pendent makes (over several posts) the following argument:
Now the ploy of saying that there-is-this-other-problem-that I-think-is-bigger-so-caring-about-the-one-we-are-discussing-is-hypocritical aside, the issue of overpopulation is a real one and, I think, deserving of its own thread:
**Is overpopulation indeed the single major threat to our planet?
And this illustrates regional differences in fertility rates. (Albeit the site itself has a very particular POV.)
A U.N. Report (click thru for the pdf) notes that most developed countries are going have decreasing populations and that those populations are going to be older. This senior skewed demographic is likely to cause significant strains on these economies and even significant migration from high population areas come up short to replace the losses in the working age population.
Meanwhile the current UN Population Division Policy Brief (again, click thru for the pdf; it’s the first link) emphasizes that the least developed countries continue to have fertility rates of 5 or more and poorly met family planning needs. Not only do women there have lots of kids, they have particularly high adolescent birth rates. They argue that investment in family planning in these undeveloped countries pays on itself two to six times over in other avoided costs.
My take: overpopulation is neither an ignored problem nor is it the single major problem to the planet or even close. Which is not say that it is not a problem that deserves attention, perhaps more than it gets. High birth rates in the underdeveloped world makes it hard to achieve goals in education (especially of women) or economic objectives and failure to achieve those makes impacting birth rates much more difficult. Unevenly distributed population and age demographics will cause regional difficulties. But so long as we plan ahead for climate changes with agricultural technologies and practices appropriate for the world in which we will exist within we should be able to feed the peak of 9 billion in a sustainable manner that does not destroy the planet.
Paul Ehrlich’s predictions have failed to materialize as yet. Apocalypse-by-overpopulation makes for good SF, but the idea is based on straight-line extrapolations and ignores the tendency of industrialization to reduce the birthrate. Which does not mean it’s not a problem, of course; it’s just not a problems that threatens imminent doom.
I don’t think overpopulation really is a problem. Overconsumption and thoughtless consumption are the real problems. If a permaculture mentality were to be inculcated worldwide we could support our population quite easily and make the world even greener than it is today.
Overpopulation is not a problem - the low range estimate from the U.N. actually has the global population declining quite dramatically. The mid-range estimate, quoted by DSeid above, is perfectly sustainable.
The problems with population change come more from changing patterns of population, which will cause significant stress. Japan is facing a potential population meltdown. Europe’s population is increasingly being supported by immigration, which will over time change the nature of Europe.
But overpopulation in general doesn’t seem to be something we need to worry about.
If overpopulation is a problem - and it can be a localized problem at the very least, plus the implications of population shifts and collapses Sam refers to - it certainly would not be the single major threat to our planet. There’s all kinds of wrong in that statement, but here’s one factoid to chew on:
If you got rid of half the world’s population, we’d still have just as many nuclear weapons.
A serious nuclear war is still a possibility, much as we’d like to believe the threat went away circa 1989, and a mid-level nuclear exchange would make overpopulation as an environmental problemn a very fond memory. Nuclear weapons frighten me a lot more than people screwing.
Overpopulation definitely is a problem, it just isn’t a catastrophic, armageddon-type problem. War, crime, disease, famine, poverty – almost all of the ills of society stem from the fact that there are too many people. It is probably never going to be a doomsday scenario because the population tends to stabilize itself with the above mentioned famine, disease, war, etc acting as a sort of negative feedback. Technology just raises the level of sustainability. But just because it isn’t the end of the world doesn’t mean that the world wouldn’t be a vastly better place in almost every way if there were far fewer people.
DrCube It’s not that there are too many people it’s that the resources are used inefficiently. War, crime, disease, famine and poverty all existed when the population was 1/1000th of what it is today. Your statement is simply factually incorrect. Overpopulation is not the cause of these things.
North America has a population half the size of Europe spread out over a landmass that is twice as large. Other pockets of the world have similar population/size disparities.
Because of this, overpopulation will never be a major problem for the planet, just certain parts of it.
Area 10,180,000 km² (3,930,000 sq mi)o[›]
Population 731,000,000o[›]
Area
Total 9,826,630 km2 1
3,794,066 sq mi
Density 70/km² (181/sq mi)
Population
2009 estimate 306,101,000[2] (3rd4)
2000 census 281,421,906[3]
Density 31/km2 (180th) 80/sq mi
And yet both Europe and North America are some of the most prosperous, cleanest and safest places to live in the entire world.
Area
Total 2,505,813 km2 (10th)
967,495 sq mi
Water (%) 6
Population
July 2007 estimate 39,379,358 (33rd)
1993 census 24,940,683
Density 14/km2 (194th)
36/sq mi
Area
Total 390,757 km2 (60th)
150,871 sq mi
Water (%) 1
Population
January 2008 estimate 13,349,0001 (68th)
Density 33/km2 (170th)
85/sq mi
Area
Total 1,104,300 km2 (27th)
426,371 sq mi
Water (%) 0.7
Population
2008 estimate 73,500,000 (15th²)
1994 census 53,477,265
Density 70/km2 (123rd)
181/sq mi
Area
Total 377,873 km2 (62nd)
145,883 sq mi
Water (%) 0.8
Population
2007 estimate 127,433,494 (10th)
2004 census 127,333,002
Density 337/km2 (30th)
872.8/sq mi
Area
Total 3,287,240‡ km2 (7th)
1,269,210 sq mi
Water (%) 9.56
Population
2008 estimate 1,147,995,904[9] (2nd)
2001 census 1,028,610,328[10]
Density 349/km2 (32nd)
904/sq mi
So as you can see, population density has little to do with quality of life in most cases. The US and Zimbabwe have a similar density. Europe and Ethiopia are similar. Japan and India are similar and Sudan has less than all of them and yet is one of the shittiest places to live on Earth.
It has less to do with population and more to do with allocation of resources.
Human endeavor, intellect and accomplishment so far exceeds anything else on this planet that I have a hard time becoming overly concerned about the environmental impact of human existence compared to the net value of human life. Obviously, environmental concerns are important and we should consider how we can preserve the natural environment, but not at any cost.
Why should we? Does the environment view us as having value independent of our usefulness to it? There are reasons to value the environment that don’t have anything to do with a sentimental mushy-headed romanticism that requires a level of selflessness no human being has ever actually displayed.
A question which is not, I think, seriously pondered very often. Most people’s reaction would be either, “Of course! What a stupid question!” or “Of course not! What a stupid question!”
I believe the human brain is by far the most important resource we have. Many, if not most, of the problems caused by higher population density can be solved by human ingenuity. As has already been pointed out the US and Europe have higher densities than other countries that have much greater problems. Population density becomes more of a problem when people don’t have a chance to cultivate their own ingenuity.
I don’t think overpopulation can be written off as inconsequential but I don’t believe it is our biggest problem.