Convince me that the world IS overpopulated

[Mister Emu]

We are very short of space ... in many respects but never mind that as your main error is thinking that so long as we can feed everyone .. the world is not over-populated.

We are not short of space, and as inefficient as we are at utilizing our space right now we have significant room to decrease our footprint while increasing population.

Space and food are the typical constraints on population.

the problem is the bi-products of that consumption -- which is currently on track to catastrophically effect the Ocean

So, the problem isn't that we are overpopulated, it is with the manner of our consumption and waste management. I agree.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We only can maintain our numbers because of our consumption

This would only be true if the consumption we had was the most efficient to maintain, and that is certainly not the case. What's making poor people starve is rich opting into using resources they don't need. We don't need to have high carbon footprint farming just because the market says its desirable. We don't need six computers per home. We don't need to have that Amazon package tomorrow. We do it because it's convenient and cost of living and wage stagnation leaves precious little time and energy to seek better alternatives.

That and we continue to allow billionaires to be billionaires, the most wasteful by far.

 

[Sargonski]

Not good for the environment, but we can't simply decide that the Chinese people don't deserve our standard of living. That is the thing: we have to assume that the 8 billion all want our standard of living and are working to get it.

Its not about deciding for for the Chinese .. It is about deciding not to enable and fuel it.

Your absolutely right that 8 Billion want our standard of living - and I am absolutely right that if we continue trying to make that a reality at the moment will destroy the Oceans and perhaps humanity with it..

Did you not understand my estimation of catastrophic effect within 30 years ? Crying out " 8 billion want want our standard of living" .. does not change this reality.

I need 100 Trillion tollars - 10 Trillion a year for 10 years - to set things right. ..

 

[Sargonski]

We are not short of space, and as inefficient as we are at utilizing our space right now we have significant room to decrease our footprint while increasing population.

Space and food are the typical constraints on population.


So, the problem isn't that we are overpopulated, it is with the manner of our consumption and waste management. I agree.

Nope .. the problem is that our the biproducts of our current consumption is ruining the planet .. that consumption is based on overpopulation - coupled with the industrialization of the non industrialized 6 Billion at a rate of roughly 1 Billion per 30 years .. the overall population increasing to 10 Billion round 2050.

You can not take the population out of the equation .. maintaining current trajectory / industrializing at current rate .. with current technology.

We can fantasize about .. Oh .. good ness .. if we made more efficient use of space .. and had batteries with better storage and recharge .. better technology . but the fact remains that we are not there yet .. with current technology we the biproducts of our consumption are Population x some factor= biproducts.

Now .. if we could just stop these polluters from polluting .. problem solved .. but until such time .. if we continue down current path .. the Oceans will have catastrophic event in 30 years .. as outlined in previous post .. too many people consuming too much.



.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can not take the population out of the equation .. maintaining current trajectory / industrializing at current rate .. with current technology..

..but it is a projection .. based on what MIGHT happen, if everything continues as it
appears to be.
There are many factors that can change our present course.
We have just had one example recently .. global pandemic .. and then there's war,
and climate disasters to name but a few.

..so it's not that the world can't support its population .. it's more one of greed to consume,
and what that leads to.

 

[Heyo]

This would only be true if the consumption we had was the most efficient to maintain, and that is certainly not the case.

It is true for the current state of affairs. We do not have zero footprint humans. And until we have, the formula is

# of humans * ecological footprint > regenerative force of Earth = overpopulation

You may solve the problem by making humans less intrusive or by reducing the number of humans (or both), but given the status quo, there are too many humans on Earth.
And as for addressing the problem, what do you think is easier to achieve, fewer humans or more eco-friendly humans?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is true for the current state of affairs. We do not have zero footprint humans. And until we have, the formula is

# of humans * ecological footprint > regenerative force of Earth = overpopulation

You may solve the problem by making humans less intrusive or by reducing the number of humans (or both), but given the status quo, there are too many humans on Earth.
And as for addressing the problem, what do you think is easier to achieve, fewer humans or more eco-friendly humans?

The latter, as our waste is egregious far beyond needs and reproductive control far more invasive, less effective in practice, with ethical and classism problems that won't be met by the fact the unsustainability of human practice is top down, not equal.

There is no excuse to maintain our instant gratification culture. There is an excuse to preserve reproductive choice.

 

[an anarchist]

No thanks. These folks do it for us:

Homepage - Population Connection

Population Connection educates and advocates to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth’s resources.

populationconnection.org

Specifically, see:

Why Population? - Population Connection

Human population growth is a major driver of our environmental crises. Empowering measures to slow population growth are key to the advancement of human rights and a safe and healthy environment.

populationconnection.org

Then do your own research and take a college class or few. Anyone who is sufficiently studied in ecology and understands concepts like "carrying capacity" and what the symptoms of overpopulation in a species looks like will grasp that human overpopulation is indisputably a thing.

From the link
Empowering measures to control population growth are key to the advancement of human rights and a safe and healthy environment.

This seems like a contradictory statement.

Sooo.... Who gets to control who has babies and what not? Who gets to control who is allowed to consume finite resources? My bet is everyone will say "the government".

Governments of the worlds are behind all of these organizations and studies, and their conclusion is that someone will have to be the adult and decide who can produce children.

Now, if the government was ran by a bunch of eugenicists, maybe we'd be in trouble... Oh wait...

I mistrust all of these organizations, mind you. The conclusions support totalitarian control, so I doubt the sincerity of those truly behind the studies.

 

[Sargonski]

..but it is a projection .. based on what MIGHT happen, if everything continues as it
appears to be.
There are many factors that can change our present course.
We have just had one example recently .. global pandemic .. and then there's war,
and climate disasters to name but a few.

..so it's not that the world can't support its population .. it's more one of greed to consume,
and what that leads to.

Look .. a certain amount of continuation is already baked into the cake --- Nuclear Power for example -- finally the morons are figuring out that this is the only way we going to get off carbon anytime soon. You Know .. !? .. .. OK Good .. now knowing that from the boardroom to turning on the switch is 10 years from now --- how many have we in the plans ? .. and how much time do you think is a reasonable estimate for continuing on the same .. and no ... you do not get to go . But what if we solve Fusion .. and may God help us to do so .. soon .. but we don't base sound policy on the basis of a pipe dream .. and that is just the basics .. doing what needs to be done for our nation .. what exactly was your timeline to exporting that to other nations .. OH China is already on that .. 20 years from now might be able to maintain the annual increase through nuclear .. .. in the meantime .. Pollution into the Ocean continues .. part of which is from smokestacks .. but not just China .. India .. the whole Global South .. Billions and Billions of first world wanna bee's

and No .. its not that the world can not feed everyhungry mouth .. we can do that easily .. give me 50 billion a year out of the 10 TRillion I am asking for over the next 10 years .. world hunger solved.

The problem is the biproducts of that consumption- all that fertilizer run off going into the rivers and/or direct into the Ocean-- industrial farming to feed the fat and the thin .. this increases with consumption .. and unless we can get them to change practice .. and in terms of this we don't even have our house in order .. like we do on Mercury and those nasties.

Whats your timeline .. Nevermind the increase in Nitrogen pollution due to population increase and industrialization .. just staying where we are at, is going to toast the Ocean in 30 years. The patient is already spasming under current loading .. the toilet over flowing which what we put in currently .. but this is increasing . .not decreasing.. Just with current loading 30 years to catastrophic damage .. and lucky to go that long. Given the current leadership moronic Western Environmental policy .. which can't even get any of these major policies done at home if they wanted to - and they don't how are they going to get China and India to oblige .. those nations having their own politics to worry about.

Your turn .. -- how much time to decrease nitrogen inputs into the Ocean by Half .. Give a realistic timeline and how we get there quicker than 20 years .. and then tell me who's projection is on the basis of what might happen .. I just bet on the status quo being maintained .. which has paid off near every year for the last 1000 or so years .. sans a few brief excursions from the norm.

 

[Heyo]

The latter, as our waste is egregious far beyond needs and reproductive control far more invasive, less effective in practice, with ethical and classism problems that won't be met by the fact the unsustainability of human practice is top down, not equal.

There is no excuse to maintain our instant gratification culture. There is an excuse to preserve reproductive choice.

I'm all for choice. What about something like:
You may choose to reproduce, but only after you have achieved neutrality for yourself and your offspring?

Would that be an incentive for highly responsible ecological behaviour, i.e. reduced consumption, or an incentive to remain childless?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your turn .. -- how much time to decrease nitrogen inputs into the Ocean by Half .. Give a realistic timeline and how we get there quicker than 20 years .. and then tell me who's projection is on the basis of what might happen .. I just bet on the status quo being maintained .. which has paid off near every year for the last 1000 or so years .. sans a few brief excursions from the norm.

Well, you might "bet on the status quo being maintained" ..
..but I do NOT !

We are at the brink of disaster .. that is not equivalent to the last few 1000 years,
and we are in uncharted territory.
It's easy to see how wars, pestilence and climate disaster will likely happen.
Whatever way you "bake it", it's not a desirable near-future.

..but "overpopulation"? That is not the issue here .. the issue is overconsumption, and greed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm all for choice. What about something like:
You may choose to reproduce, but only after you have achieved neutrality for yourself and your offspring?

Would that be an incentive for highly responsible ecological behaviour, i.e. reduced consumption, or an incentive to remain childless?

Reproduction should neither be punishment or reward, because making either so is just punishing the poor, with less spending flexibility or access to multiple reliable birth control. Being able to be carbon neutral in the US especially, make no mistake, is a privilege.

And considering the problems in the consumer sector are far and away the much smaller, already low birthrate wealthy class, I'd much rather go after companies and 1%ers enabling this behavior than general consumers themselves.

Places like Amazon, companies slowing ecological research like Enron, city planners that prioritize roads over green spaces and public transport, supermarkets which window-shopping make egregious amounts of food waste, farmers and their retail partners preforming monoculturing and hot housing and water wasting non-native staple foods as their primary earners (aka avocado and almonds farming), clear cutting for palm oil, housing manufacturers making great swaths of impractical suburbs that just sit empty, Jeff Bezos, whose super yaht produces more carbon waste than near 500 of you etc etc.

 

[icehorse]

It's true that people in the first world consume way, way more than their fair share of the earth's resources. And that's unsustainable.

But once again I'll link to an article that shows that even in the poorest regions in the world, our resources are being used in unsustainable ways.

There are too many people.

==

How about positive incentives for making fewer babies? What if every woman who reaches menopause having had zero babies, got a $500,000 retirement bonus. And for those who had only one baby, a $250,000 bonus.

https://www.zawya.com/en/world/afri...-experts-express-concerns-in-nigeria-uiwpndnh

 

[Mister Emu]

Nope .. the problem is that our the biproducts of our current consumption is ruining the planet

The byproducts of our consumption are based on what we consume, how we consume it, and how we handle the waste. Which can all be addressed while still maintaining a positive population growth.

Population growth is too essential to human development and emancipation to throw out, unless the population size itself is the fundamental issue. Which it isn't.

You can not take the population out of the equation .. maintaining current trajectory / industrializing at current rate .. with current technology.

But we can analyze the situation and recognize that population is an exacerbating factor and not the core concern.

We can fantasize about .. Oh .. good ness .. if we made more efficient use of space .. and had batteries with better storage and recharge .. better technology . but the fact remains that we are not there yet .. with current technology we the biproducts of our consumption are Population x some factor= biproducts.

Now .. if we could just stop these polluters from polluting .. problem solved .. but until such time .. if we continue down current path .. the Oceans will have catastrophic event in 30 years .. as outlined in previous post .. too many people consuming too much.

Do you imagine the prospects of stopping, in an ethical fashion, people from having kids are so significantly higher than meaningfully reducing pollution in an ethical fashion?

 

[icehorse]

Population growth is too essential to human development and emancipation to throw out

I know the economists always say we need endless growth, but what if they're wrong. Are there other reasons we need growth?

 

[Sargonski]

The byproducts of our consumption are based on what we consume, how we consume it, and how we handle the waste. Which can all be addressed while still maintaining a positive population growth.

Population growth is too essential to human development and emancipation to throw out, unless the population size itself is the fundamental issue. Which it isn't.

But we can analyze the situation and recognize that population is an exacerbating factor and not the core concern.

Do you imagine the prospects of stopping, in an ethical fashion, people from having kids are so significantly higher than meaningfully reducing pollution in an ethical fashion?

It is what it is .. I didn't make the rules .. just telling you what they are .. and currently we are doing a horrible job of addressing the waste - contrary to the hope for the future - with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Pop Growth .. regardless of how when why and what - is an exacerbating factor - core concern - and fundamental issue .. along with industrialization of non industrialized population .. in a situation where all the growth is coming from the Non industrialized end of the equation.

The two work together in this equation .. every extra mouth increases consumption - by how much is a function of industrialization.

I already explained how to ethically stop population growth .. what is this silliness about no kids ? every couple can have 2 kids without increasing the population . double the China one child policy .. but don't have to go as far as actual restrictions .. Every first world nation's population is decreasing. People with food security don't reproduce that much .. free contraceptives might help as well .... but, at the end of the day .. if they are bowl of rice a day .. and they stay there .. perhaps increasing from 1 to 2 on the consumption scale -- 36 being first world .. isn't so bad as long as you are not trying to industrialize these folks to 36 on the consumption scale.

Its a train racing towards a bridge that is out. .. you want to see unethical .. just wait until the catastrophic effects increase.

Population growth would not matter so much to Ocean Pollution if we could stop nations from dumping toxins and pollutants into the Ocean .. and under the current regiment .. every extra person adds to the amount of pollutant being dumped into the Ocean.

 

[Mister Emu]

I know the economists always say we need endless growth, but what if they're wrong. Are there other reasons we need growth?

Scientific, technological progress would be severely hampered by a loss of population growth for one. It requires ever increasing specialization, that only a percentage of the population is fit for, to make progress and specialized workers to maintain the systems that are developed.

It is what it is .. I didn't make the rules .. just telling you what they are

You didn't just make the rules, you made them up.

I already explained how to ethically stop population growth .. what is this silliness about no kids ? every couple can have 2 kids without increasing the population . double the China one child policy .. but don't have to go as far as actual restrictions

Every couple would probably need 3 kids or more to stop population decline when accounting for those who don't have children. But that doesn't matter, we've been just as effective at stopping population growth as we have at pollution; lowering the population is just as fanciful as meaningfully combating pollution.

Every first world nation's population is decreasing.

Most first world nations are scrambling to combat that, whether through messaging to increase family formation like Japan or immigration like Europe/America. Declining population is a societal disaster.

Its a train racing towards a bridge that is out. .. you want to see unethical .. just wait until the catastrophic effects increase.

I'd rather address the bridge than reroute to make it take longer to get there, while putting the train at risk of derailing in the process.

Population growth would not matter so much to Ocean Pollution if we could stop nations from dumping toxins and pollutants into the Ocean

Exactly. And since population growth is a natural good that positively impacts humanity in so many ways, we shouldn't seek to limit it when it isn't the issue.

 

[Heyo]

Reproduction should neither be punishment or reward, because making either so is just punishing the poor, with less spending flexibility or access to multiple reliable birth control. Being able to be carbon neutral in the US especially, make no mistake, is a privilege.

And yet, those who have the privilege, are now those who consume much more than the average.

And considering the problems in the consumer sector are far and away the much smaller, already low birthrate wealthy class, I'd much rather go after companies and 1%ers enabling this behavior than general consumers themselves.

The effect is the same, the average consumer has to be forced to consume less and if the number of consumers increases, they have to consume dramatically less.

Places like Amazon, companies slowing ecological research like Enron, city planners that prioritize roads over green spaces and public transport, supermarkets which window-shopping make egregious amounts of food waste, farmers and their retail partners preforming monoculturing and hot housing and water wasting non-native staple foods as their primary earners (aka avocado and almonds farming), clear cutting for palm oil, housing manufacturers making great swaths of impractical suburbs that just sit empty, Jeff Bezos, whose super yaht produces more carbon waste than near 500 of you etc etc.

No matter which factor of the equation you are addressing (I'd prefer both), the fact remains that until the problem is addressed, Earth is overpopulated as it is.

That's the objective in the challenge. Did I convince you?

 

[Quintessence]

From the link
Empowering measures to control population growth are key to the advancement of human rights and a safe and healthy environment.

This seems like a contradictory statement.

Sooo.... Who gets to control who has babies and what not? Who gets to control who is allowed to consume finite resources? My bet is everyone will say "the government".

Nope. The organization I linked to promotes reductions in birth rate solely through education and the empowerment of women, actually. But conspiracy theory away.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And yet, those who have the privilege, are now those who consume much more than the average.

I agree, that's why I'm focused more on those that are consuming more than average than the average.

The effect is the same, the average consumer has to be forced to consume less and if the number of consumers increases, they have to consume dramatically less.

Imo this is antithetical to the previous statement. The below average population consume way more than the average population, so lowering the consumption rate of the average won't do much.

No matter which factor of the equation you are addressing (I'd prefer both), the fact remains that until the problem is addressed, Earth is overpopulated as it is.

That's the objective in the challenge. Did I convince you?

Only if by overpopulation we mean that more resources are being consumed than is renewable, which I totally agree with. Not that birth rates reduction will cause meaningful change, when the largest problem is the smallest birth rate demographic. Hence why I'm against any form of artificial limits on reproduction (both because I think it won't change much and because I think it poses ethical problems) focusing instead on addressing the issue top down. Both because the top consume way more than the bottom and because the top have way more power to resist industry change than the bottom.