Overpopulation Could be People, Planet Problem

Second most bogus topic on internet apart from "Who Shot J.F. Kennedy"!

There is no "over-population' problem globally, but a distribution problem married to a political/ethical/moral problem. You could put ALL the people worldwide within the city limits found in many US states...but food rots on the docks in Africa, geo-political systems corrupt charity, and too much of the globe is, well, not friendly to human occupation.

What we need is not birth control, but a global change in how we think about each other...a Messiah if you would.

Of course, evolutionists are not looking for a Messiah, sounds religious! And too many religions have lost the faith of their founders...

We do truly live in a fallen world...

Yawn...scientists are to blame because they don't on faith accept the views of religious folks...

Yawn...if we'd just go back to some nebulous time when religious leaders were unquestioned then the world would be perfect....

How come there isn't a "rollseyes" emoticon?

You could put ALL the people worldwide within the city limits found in many US states

You could but it would not be practical (a bit tight and all).

As for over population, you are actually quite wrong. There is currently not enough land to grow the food necessary to feed all of the world's population (it has been like this for some time), so even if all the food in the world was evenly distributed a percentage of the population would die of hunger.

As for over population, you are actually quite wrong. There is currently not enough land to grow the food necessary to feed all of the world's population (it has been like this for some time), so even if all the food in the world was evenly distributed a percentage of the population would die of hunger.

It looks like the problem is self correcting. Nature is so smart.

there goes the neighborhood.

I would like to see the verifiable statistics to support this claim. Hundreds and hundreds of tons of food are wasted every day in many places. In some areas, price supports are used to keep the amount of food grown below certain levels. There is plenty of land to grow food on, and certainly plenty of ways to get it to people who need it. Hunger need not be a problem if distribution efforts were often not stymied by forces who benefit from the starvation of certain peoples.

There has never been a famine in a country with a democratic process and a free press.

I have read that there is enough land in the world to produce enough food for everybody, at least for now. guess it depends on which report you use to get your point across.

But when one makes a claim and are challenged they should post their sources. To separate truth from an activist misleading statements.

I don't remember the name of the scientist that did the study but it was based on the average and minimum land footprint (area a person needs) theory. It was a good 8 years ago too so my memory is a bit hazy.

Oh, I just remembered, the issue is only going to get worse (it is an issue, but as to the scale, well it depends on which study you look at and if you bother to take Africa into account which has one of the biggest problems with famine). Well yes the world population is increasing but a big issue at the moment is farmers growing biofuel crops instead of food crops. I must admit they do make the scenery look nice as you fly over England or Europe now days.

There has never been a famine in a country with a democratic process and a free press.

How about Africa over the last few years. Just putting it out there (least we forget her).

I may be wrong, but I don't find North Korea, China, Russia, Ethiopia, the Sudan and Uganda high on the list of free-press democracies.

My point was simply that there is not a "Food Problem" in the world, there's a Food Distribution problem. Food is used as a military tool by tin-pot dictators the world over to starve their enemies into oblivion. Famines caused by 'natural causes', e.g. drought, flood, could be overcome if the governments in the countries so affected had the wherewithal to alleviate the problems, and really wanted to. But usually, it's the 'lower class' in those countries who starve to death, meaning little to the landed, wealthy, powerful gentry who rule.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that hand-wringing over 'over-population' is a sneaky, perhaps subconscious form of racism practised primarily by relatively well-fed Caucasians. No one ever said, 'there's way too many white people'...

Are there enough resources for the entire worlds population, to use resources the way the developed world does? The only distribution problem is the distribution of power!

Another cheap shot by a guest.

Somebody stating that it is untrue must be living in a protected environment with blinkers and candy coated glasses.

It is true that it may be more evident in some places but it can be noticed every where, even in America.

Consider development of housing , shopping centres, industrial sites etc. because of growing populations all at the expense of the environment.

Maybe we should start shouting about GLOBAL FILLING!

Hi Hendrik, What do you propose that we should do? How about killing every body as soon as they reach their 60th birthday? Or should we sterilise every woman and man when they have produced one child? Then there is the alternative of doing what the Nazis did during the second world war? My friend it is your choice? Spencer.

60 - At 63 I should be dead.

What to do? That is a tough one! (and it is not my call)

Birth control -

Most cultures are already doing it voluntary. when I was a boy it was common to see family's with 4 and a half dozen of children (4+6=10). today our part of the population growth is down to less than 2.

The problem is that sectors who can afford it the least are multiplying uncontrolled.

There are cultures where stringent rules apply already. The "can do" have changed to "have to".

For me trees and plants are a saving factor because energy from the sun and large amounts of CO2 is absorbed. Unfortunately many areas with natural forest are cleared to satisfy the growing need for food production. with the soil being marginal (for the first few years at least) more land need to be cleared. The result is more heat and CO2. I think the quantities involved exceeds the CO2 emissions everybody is raving about.

In SA we have this aids pandemic. in some areas we actually have negative growth rate. But this deficit is more than offset by influx from the rest of Africa. I would say more than 2 million / year. (5% of the population) With an unemployment rate of 40- 50% it cannot be sustainable. If you drive around in the county you notice new settlements of squatters appearing daily.

Nature has a way of leveling out by itself. A friend of mine with a dairy (1400 cows) complained that he has a rate of 70% bull calves. I told him that he should increase the number of bulls in the herd. it is better now. why? nature compensated for the fear of extinction.

To conclude. Birth control (or turning the elderly into food - green protein tablets ) may sound harsh but it may become a necessity.

In case anyone missed the other similar thread.

It's not the so much the amount of resources, as it is the allocation of resources.

Hi Garthh, I agree with you! Here in Europe we have what is known as the "Agricultural policy", for years the EU via brussels have paid farmers to det aside land for non-production. This policy was introduced many decades ago because there was an over production of grain, potatoes, butter and milk, the so-called food mountain. Rather than sell it at a loss or even give it to the people in the third world they used to dump it or burn it! All this was done to keep the prices up, some of my friends and I were so discusted that we bought 1000 tons of over produced wheat at market price and had it sent to the sub-Sahara countries who were suffering a major drought at the time! Long live democracy. Spencer.

Global filling !! Heh, heh. Sounds like I should add that one to my signature.

We have quotas, so why not quotas for people?

Farmers live with milk and crop quotas; (in UK)
why not have a quota for the population? Eg.

UK could have 60 million, India 1 million, the USA...whatever
- with it all being monitored by the WHO.
(Like the World bank monitors the finances.)

Persons would need a permit (licence) to have a baby; either
as a single parent, or a family. Similar to going fishing!

There would be brisk trade in licences, and a completely new
counterfeit fraud squad set up. Babies without a licence
would be rounded up and chased out of town.
This would bring a whole new meaning to illegal immigrants.

Death certificates would be worth a fortune; as needed
to obtain a replacement "birth" licence. (new for old.)

I think someone was here before me on this; about 1984 I think.

jt.

I am an engineer; not a social scientist. However as I am an Indian I thought I would butt in. India is certainly over populated. In fact I would say overpopulation is the greatest problem in our country. However I live in the only state in India where the birth rate is below replacement level. In fact we have only about 1.6 babies per couple. (I am 60; and has fathered only one girl). My native state of Kerala also has the highest litteracy; especially womens litteracy. Nearly everybody reads the papers and are better aware of what goes on than even Europeans! We also have the lowest infant mortality rate etc. Just the reverse is the situation in the state with the lowest litteracy. I think these facts point to a solution. Even poor people can be made aware of the dangers of overpopulation by education.

India's population density ranks 31st in the world - even Belgium is higher (341 per square kilometer vs India's 329) yet no one complains that Belgium is overpopulated.

Hell, Bermuda has three times the number of people per square kilometer - over 1200 - and no one raises alarms about the teeming masses of Bermudians...

And they're both predominantly white populations.

The problem is, 99.999% of us tend to LIVE the same place everybody else does - thus, to our viewpoint, the place is elbow-to-elbow with strangers. Our roads just happen to pass by all the construction, shopping centers, strip malls, schools, and other build-up, so it looks like the entire planet is covered with concrete.

There's plenty of room here, even after you discount the un-inhabitable spots (Antartica, Chernobyl, etc) and the scenic ones - I don't offer up the Grand Canyon as a suitable spot for a housing development.

While it is true that modern technology can provide everyone on the planet enough and more to live, if it was just a question of man verses nature; most of our energy and resources goes into killing each other. But even in a perfect world where we unite to win the wherewithall for living from nature, we need to recognise that there is a limit to the planet's resources. So for those who can (rashly) hope humankind would be around for further thousands of years it is always a good policy to limit the population. I often even hope for some sort of a epidemic which will cause loss of human fertility when I see the teaming millions in our country !

<< I often even hope for some sort of a epidemic which will cause loss of human fertility when I see the teaming millions in our country !>>

I hope, good sir, that your last statement was made in jest.

That statement Sir, puts you in the same catagoy as Mengele! Spencer.

The hope for an epidemic which would cause loss of human fertility was not made in jest; but out of desperation. Unless our country (India) can reign in the population we are all heading towards a very sticky future. And I don't see it happening in any other way given the present reality. You see we have been reasonably successful in engineering (my field). We can launch geostationary satellites, build atomic power stations etc. But by the time you have ten trains running where there was one the demand for train seats has gone up by a factor of fifty making things worse than when we had only one train. And the strain on the environment is horrific. I am certain we can solve all our problems if only we could have that epidemic so that only one in a hundred couples would have a baby!

the advances in technology have not been matched by, advances in social & political organizations.

I believe your Benjamine Franklin said the same thing back in the 18th century.

True but,

the differential grows with advance, the political structures are nearly unchanged since the time of Franklin.

That is because of our definition of "advance". If the number of cars on the road or the stock market health is the index of advance India is doing very well. Problem is that a third or more of our population are outside the market, living like animals. They don't figure in the GDP or market calculations. Even in the US, I believe millions go hungry! And the US is supposed to be the model for the whole world (at least according to President Bush). Personaly I don't think a market economy is people friendly. Of course I don't know what alternative is better. Any way, in any economy a large population makes life more difficult.

<<<Personaly I don't think a market economy is people friendly>>>

Ask the millions who starved under communist rule in Russia or China in the last 50 years which they'd prefer.

A 'market' economy is the only viable market for satisfying the most needs of the most people, over time - and if allowed to operate without 'tweaking' and/or 'guidance' from a central committee, and if the government does not prostitute itself by granting monopoly rights. In a truly free market economy, producers and consumers engage in transactions that are beneficial to both. Its only when you toss illegitimate outside influences into the mix that the free market breaks down - e.g. government granted monopoly, protections, regulations designed to restrict entry into a market, and so on. If an entity is able to provide a good or service to any demand, resources will naturally flow to the process that satisfies the most demand.

Government subsidies to non-competitive producers, in the name of "saving jobs" or "protecting consumers" will always fail in the long run, because they don't, and can't, address the change in consumer habits that necessitated the subsidy.

Economic dislocation as markets change and mature is inevitable. Members of the market either adapt or perish. Using the power of the government to delay, redirect, or otherwise attempt to alter this is what causes a 'free market' to get off kilter.

but how does a free market in water or electricity work?

What about public safety, civil defense, anti corruption.

All things that a free markets have trouble dealing with.

Please don't privatize my garbage pickup in the name of cost cutting, only to reduce the frequency & consistency of pick ups.

Not @ all.

Nothing works better than the rewards the free market can provide.

Good ideas + hard work should = improved living conditions

I just wish we could have free markets!

& actual free trade.

Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals!

$'s are not the ultimate gauge of growth or progress.

Corporations that make money in this country, should pay taxes in this country.

California's deregulation mess is a fine example of the free market, except the commodity for sale was the public trust, not energy.

I like your signature line, very true

I did say that I do not know what the alternative for a market economy should be. I live in a part of the world where the market is steadily destroying the environment and the life of ordinary people. A centrally planned economy has of course failed in the Soviet Union and China. But that does not automatically point to a market lead salvation for the under developed parts of the world. I just feel we need to think about these things without being bogged down in old fashioned debates about LEFT and RIGHT. We need to develop political science without developing political faiths.

Here, here

Left & right have no real meaning.

The bills have to be paid, but starving populations is no solution.

Real accounting that factors in more than just growth rates & GDP, needs to be at least talked about.

democracy sucks, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

who better to design a better system than a bunch of technocrats!

I don't think the problem is young people, and new families with children on the planet, but rather the problem is at the other end of the age spectrum. People are living too long with too many unproductive years. Older people also use the resources of the planet, coasting on the size of their peak productivity, with out any expectionation of adding to the production of the planet. The concept of work can be modified so one is doing something productive for society until the very end of life.

This is a staggering statistic. This proves that overpopulation is a growing problem throughout the world. If India's population does pass China than the world will be in for many troubles in the future. We will now have many major world countries that are overpopulated The problem with India right now is they do not have the resources to do something about this problem. China on the other hand has already started to do something about this because they have the resources to control their population. They have made laws to reduce the population. To me although this is a step in the right direction I feel that making law limiting population is against the rights of the people. I would say a better approach would be to get the issue out there. To let the people know that if the population growth does not slow down then the world that we know today will be much different. Resources will become much more scarce and and we will face environmental effects. Some of these effects will be we will over pollute the air causing plants and animals to die. Another problem that we will face if we do not do something about this problem is we will basically run out of land for people to live. Land will become overdeveloped and people will be going into other peoples territory causing world conflicts. Those are my current views on this situation. If you have any questions or comments please comment back.