Is the threat of overpopulation a myth?
Can you please elaborate on your question a bit?
The human population is still increasing, as a planet we’re making more babies than there are people dying off, so I’m not sure what you’re thinking of as being a myth associated with overpopulation?
-Doug
I think overpopulation IS a threat. I think we’re overpopulated NOW. The planet can support a cirtain amount of life. As the human population increases, it crowds out other forms of life. We keep losing species; we keep losing wilderness areas and open spaces. Our waste products are changing the climate.
Here is the link to our best run-around on that issue:
6 billion?
Short answer: we certainly have localized problems regarding the care and feeding of humans, however, the rate of increase has been dropping even in (relatively) undeveloped countries and it appears that we are not going to overpopulate the world. Shortages occur because of bad distribution systems, not a lack of resources. (We may have more serious issues regarding polution, but a smaller, higher-tech world population will probably survive that, too.)
Yes, I think it’s pretty well established that we aren’t going to run out of food anytime soon, even if major disasters strike and reduce the food supply. The industrialized countries produce much more than is necessary. I recall reading (in an atlas, I think) that the current world harvest would equate to over 3000 calories per person per day, so even if a large chunk of that was destroyed, there would still be enough food.
The problem is growing prosperity. As a nation grows wealthier, the population starts to demand more land and resources. What if all the people currently living at extreme population densities in third world cities became rich enough to afford large houses set on large plots of land? For resources such as oil, we can and will find replacements, but their just isn’t any source of new land.
It’s not so much that the WORLD is overpopulated, just that CERTAIN PARTS of it are.
Take a trip to the American Midwest, and tell me if you still think we’re overpopulated.
However, sheer logistics will tell us that, unless some sort of controls are instituted (another argument for gun ownership… population control! :D), we could run out of space really quick. I think the most important advances would be super-hight-tech agriculture, like hydroponics and such, to provide far more food per square foot than is currently used. This would A: allow more land for development, and B: provide food for the people on that land.
In the very-long-term (i.e.- the next century or two), extra-terrestrial colonization will be necessary, I believe.
I can agree with this, but at the same time, I see a problem with the degree of environmental impact associated with larger populations. It’s not just elbow room and gallons of water used per day, but also stuff like the clearing of forests, pollution, etc…things that degrade the overall ecosystem that we need for our own healthy survival. Sure, there are a ton of things that can be done to improve resource management/distribution, but resource depletion can become a problem at some point (e.g., potential extinctions in key nodes of the food web, ozone layer depletion, loss of topsoil, accumulation of hazardous substances in our food supply, etc.).
I have no idea what population level is too much. But even if the population stabilized now, it seems like we’re still increasing our rate of consumption.
SPOOFE, please go take a look at the 6 billion? thread. We can discuss the ravages of industrialization for days, but regarding population, the best estimates are that the world population increase rate is already slowing dramatically and that, even without any catastrophes, the world absolute population will begin to decline in 100-150 years.
*Originally posted by Phobos *
Good question…check out a book by Joel E. Cohen called "How Many People Can The Earth Support? which addresses this very issue.
The issue isn’t so much overpopulation but rather (as you pointed out) increases in population that increase/excellerate resource consumption. As more and more countries industrialize and the standard of living increases, there will be a growing demand for more “stuff”. Population growth in the United States is (to me and a few others) a greater concern that population growth in underdeveloped countries. Why? Because we (the US) consume so many resources. I can’t verify this for certain, but I remember reading that the United states, which has approximately 6% of the world’s population consumes about 25-30% of the world’s energy.
Thankfully, population growth has reached stabilization rate in most developed countries and is continuing to decline in the underdeveloped countries. As tomndebb pointed out, the problem now appears to be one of distribution. Advances in technology (along with greater conservation methods) should allow the develop nations to maintain their standard of living without wasting/polluting so much, while at the same time giving the underdeveloped countries a chance to catch up (this will only happen if the advances in technology/conservation used in the developed world “diffuse” to the underdeveloped world, allowing the underdeveloped countries to bypass many of the wasteful and inefficient methods/practices now used).
The problem with debating what population is an overpopulation is that our global ecosystem can handle just about any number of humans. The critical factor is how we change the ecosystem to support the population. The earth could probably support one hundred billion people with advances in technology. Resources aren’t really an issue–we could turn every square meter of the earth into arable land given the right technological advances. The issue is how drastically we change the environment to support our population. We could have a very small population with a small environmental impact, we could have an enormous population at the expense of all other species (save a few for sustenance), or anything in between. Thus, the term overpopulation is dependent on what one deems to be an acceptable relationship between our species and all others. Before we begin discussing resource depletion and growth rates, we should debate the dynamics of our ecosystem and come to a decision regarding what that dynamic should entail. What is the balance?
Plausible arguments can be made that with better distribution, resource management, waste management, recycling, new inventions, and whatnot the earth could house upwards of 12 billion people or more. But why? What possible benefits will the extra 6 billion add to the existing population? The benefits of a smaller population, the way I see it, is clear: less stress on the environment and resources and more elbow room.
Perhaps the population expansionists should view population management in a similar light as debt management. Certainly, an individual could maximize his debt and manage payments effectively, but that individual will be at a disadvantage compared to someone with little or no debt. For example, Pyrrhonist could maximize his debt by buying and kinds of stuff, determine the minimum payments due, and maintain his finances carrying the maximum load of debt… But there is no room for error. If his roof starts leaking, there is no way for him to care for that problem, and he succumbs to the disaster. If Pyrrhonist had no debt, than the leaky roof is only a expensive repair. Similarly, if the earth is populated to its maximum, and something happens to one of the check and balances, say waste management, then you could be living hip deep in your neighbor’s feces.
Another problem with the expansionist standpoint, is the reliance of future development or inventions to manage the increasing population. For example, some one mentioned a replacement for fossil fuels will eventually elevate possible shortages. Nobody knows when or if this invention will come to fruition, so I think it’s rather imprudent depend on it before it’s here. For example, if Pyrrhonist’s boss says a huge raise is coming once Human Resources approves the promotion, Pyrrhonist can go out and buy a new BMW then and there and committing his future raise to car payments and everything will be fine if the promotions comes through, but if Human Resources decides against the promotion, then Pyrrhonist is stick with a huge payment he can’t really afford. (BTW, Pyrrhonist isn’t really interested in throwing money down the toilet on a BMW even if he does get a raise, it was just an example.) In other words, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. But the expansionist’s are doing exactly that, committing today’s resources on the assumption that there will be a replacement in the future.
I can think of many benefits an extra 6 billion people could add to the earth. Maybe one of those 6 billion will invent cold fusion or a really good shampoo and conditioner in one bottle. Maybe they will be able to produce some movies worth watching or some music worth listening to. The possibilities are endless.
Scarcity will always be with us but there is a mechanism for dealing with this. It is called prices. If fossil fuels become increasingly scarce energy prices will rise and people will use less energy. If lumber becomes scarce, prices will rise and people will use more plastic and less wood.
To take the other side of the debt analogy. I decide not to buy a house because the roof might leak, and I decide not to buy a car because gas prices might skyrocket. Meanwhile if nothing happens I am living in a tent and walking everywhere while my neighbor who decided to get a mortgage and a car payment is living in a house and driving a car.
I agree with Pyrrhonist; I like his debt analogy.
I disagree with Puddleglum. Most of the population increase is going to occur in the 3rd world, among people who are not getting enough to eat. (I’ll grant that the earth may well be capable of producing enough food for everyone, but as things are presently structured, many people are not getting enough.) Inadequately nourished people are not likely to come up with much in the way of new inventions and developments.
And think about an earth with 12 billion people: how much open space will be left, how much wilderness? How many plant and animal species will have gone extinct? What effects will increased pollution and climate change have had?
An important question, no doubt. Let me note that I live and work in a country with a million new people a year. And all crammed into the Nile Valley.
Focuses the mind.
That aside, there are a number of issues. First, Pyrrhonist somewhat, actually fundamentally, misses the point on expansion. With the exception of some few “natalist” ethnic leaders who for local and intensely parochial reasons for more of “their” people to overwhelm “the other(s)”, I believe that most world leaders recognize the problem of population explosion. And it is not a question, per se, of the most impoverished segements of the 3rd World generating innovatoin per Hazel’s intervention, but rather effectively applying technologies and techniques derived elsewhere to local problems, as in my wonderful biotech technology -doesn’t bloody matter where it is from, if we can produce high yield crop A which is also salt-tolerant and less thirsty, than fuck it, the equation is changed. Of course, social changes are also required.
However, actually achieving change is quite another matter. Moving social perceptions of the value of fertility, of children and even of future possibilities is a non-trivial problem which requires significant resources, both real and social. For better or worse, the draconian Chinese method (PRC) is widely frowned upon as infringing liberties and the like. That leaves convincing, or internaling driven changes. Possible, insofar as the latest data show the Maghreb (Western North Africa) has undergone an abrupt demographic transition to roughly replacement level birth rates, meaning a leveling off of population growth after the demographic bulge of the 1960s-1980s passes. However, that’s not the case in many other areas, although birth rates are dropping driven by a multitude of factors, largely defined by economic constraint.
Nonetheless, one is faced with the reality of facing the momentum of the current demographics. Rather like a stopping a train, it takes time. In dealing with that, one has to make realistic analyses of what can be done. Food is really not so much of a problem, given the right conditions, and given proper distribution. At the very least, even under worst case, we can probably feed on an emergency basis most areas.
The real issues are (a) water (b) long term environmental degradation which may negatively impact the (i) carrying capacity of the land (ii) ability to generate wealth in order to exit the impoverished situation current population increase naturally generates.
Water is more an issue because it is well-nigh impossible to generate large amounts of it for human use – i.e. desalinization is currently extremely expensive and energy invensive. This may change of course – and transfers are also very expensive. Further, water is quite fundamental to almost all life and economic processes. Once one reaches water scarcity, one reaches a point where escape from poverty is all the more troublesome and challenging.
In short, water resources largely are the real absolute constraint on any given area’s carrying capacity and ability to generate wealth. Other constraints may be effectively overcome (or not) but water is much harder (although possible).
As for ecosystems and extinctions, hard to say here in terms of long term sustainability. I don’t know the data is really available to make a reasoned judgement, however laying aside romantic attachments to the Wild Kingdom and all that, most extinctions and the like will not significantly reduce human carrying capacity, although they will impoverish our enjoyment of the world. But the cold calculus suggests that this will not kill us.
Now, in re crowding, most comments here show typical 1st world navel gazing. I hate to be so blunt, but frankly that’s the way it is. Toleration of crowding etc, and quite different patterns of culture and society suggest that American suburbs are not going to be globally reproduced. Nor will consumption patterns necessarily match.
All that being said, the issue is where will current trends take us. Also what can be done to change them or ameliorate them. Helping increase the wealth of the population growth areas, as well as accepting population xfers to help relieve stress and contributing to locally driven social and economic change strike me as the sole methods.
Many countries that are considered “overpopulated” are about as well off as they were 30 years ago - with half the population!
So much for that theory!
Of course, if you’re concered about overpopulation, the best thing to do would be to work for gender equality in th third world. Not only would that be the most effective way of reducing population growth, it’s worth doing for it’s own sake.
Draconian proposals are silly and self-defeating, since they require authoritarian governments to implement them. Well, authoritarian governments don’t exactly have the best track record on the environment, women’s rights, etc. etc. Ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in, and then ask yourself if dictatorship is a part of that world.
You don’t have to have an authoritarian government. You need a license to drive a car, why not to have a baby?
“Excuse me Ma’am. Can I see you license and registration for that 4 year old?”
I realize that people believe that they have a right to do with their body as they please (a car is not part of you so it is different), but the government does not allow you to purposely harm yourself, to purposely kill yourself, to perform many activities in public (such as masturbation or even being naked), so one more infringement on personal rights would not be out of the question. In my opinion all of the above should be legal, but our government is nothing like my ideal so it doesn’t seem out of place to trample another right.
Well, that really depends on economic growth. One shouldn’t blindly poo poo the problem, although simplistic malthusian scenarios have always underestimated human innovation.
Like I said above, water is the real absolute constraint.
However, even in that context, one can reduce water needs to a certain extent --the human body as well as animals obviously has some absolute minimal needs-- through conservation and reuse measures. These are often rather hard to institute, both in terms of capital costs and in terms of changing habits. Leaving that aside, one can imagine population growth exceeding the maximum carrying capacity in re water.
My final comment, gloom and doom is not really appropriate, but neither is airily blowing off the problem.
I thought I did look at the 6 billion? thread. And I don’t see how anything in my post contradicts it (note the use of the word “could”, please).
Ultimately, I don’t care about how many people the planet could possibly support… I’m more worried about how many people the planet can COMFORTABLY support. There’s a difference between squeezing as many people onto the surface as possible and allowing a little elbow room.
(Also, I’m thinking more along the lines of current technology/architecural levels… we’ve all seen the movies with ten-mile-high buildings, but just how plausible are those without anyplace to provide food or clean water?)
I know somebody would champion this turkey of argument. The extra 6 billion people, if all were born today, would still take two to three decades to mature into producers or inventors. The problems that exist today will have to be solved by people already born. The extra 6 billion would solve the new problems created by their own existence. But I don’t think the world can’t wait the years and years on a throw of the dice that the extra people will produce increased odds of inventing something fabulous. Beside, the hordes of new babies and teenagers would probably gravitate towards the inane and more likely invest the civilization with a new round of Teletubby mania and cause a new Brittany Spears manqué to excite young loins and pain adult ears.
As for the debt analogy, I think you missed the point entirely. You’re supposed to prudently and effectively manage the resources you have and can depend on, not run away in fear from every potential disaster. Good planning can even accommodate leaky roofs and car payments during periods of unemployment, but bad planning can not. Increasing the population is bad planning.
I think Collounsbury is attempting to narrow the definition of “expansionist.” Anyone who believes that the world population can safely be expanded is an expansionist. If you don’t like the term, use something else, like blockhead. Of course, someone may respond that a blockhead is really rare medical condition when the skull is angular and four-sided.
Depends on what do you consider Draconian. When the government builds even more roads, tears downs forests for new houses, taxes property for new schools, and gobbles up limited resources to accommodate the growing population, well, some people may consider that Draconian. Our current Government does that just fine. So you think limiting the number a children per couple is an earmark of a Draconian dictatorship? I say it is not. If the Government can dictate what can or can not be built and consumed for population growth why shouldn’t the Government also limit population growth?