Convince me that the world IS overpopulated

[an anarchist]

But conspiracy theory away.

I always will. I went too deep down the rabbit hole some years ago and have yet to find the way out.

 

[icehorse]

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

That's an interesting argument. But I think there are many work arounds, for example you say only a percentage of the population is fit - well improving our education systems could fix that.

I will say though that I think we DO need to reward invention and innovation, I just do not believe we need endless economic or population growth to do that.

 

[wellwisher]

There's a thread by @Estro Felino that asks folks to prove a negative regarding overpopulation; it just assumes by default and by implication that the world is overpopulated: Convince me that the world isn't overpopulated

Simply assuming that something is true doesn't make it so. I have created this thread because I specifically want to focus on any proof or evidence that supports such an assumption.

Convince me that the world IS overpopulated. I'm not convinced at all that it is, and the burden of proof is not on me or anyone else other than someone claiming that the world is not overpopulated; it's only on those who claim that it is overpopulated.

Please defend your claim that the world is indeed overpopulated and make your arguments here - go!

If you can get past the bogeyman propaganda, and look at climate change in a more objective and optimistic development science sense, relative to population growth, the warming of the planet is perfect for supporting more people on earth. If the earth was to get warmer, that means more water will be evaporated into the atmosphere. This means more rain and more fresh water, than we have today. This is good for farming and drinking by more people.

I am not fixating on the worse case scenarios to scare you; BOOO! Rather I am following the logic of global warming like it is occurring on an alien planet, far away, that is mostly covered by water and needs a way to support more little aliens. It is so far away, my bogeyman is far away and out of mind. Now I can see how this has potential but needs work.

Besides more rain and more fresh water, by the sun and earth, more optimized grow zones will open up even more land to farm more crops. Geologists have found tropical plants in Northern Canada. So the earth and life on earth can easily handle more warming than today. Even if we do not warm quite that much, we will still have more farmable land, water, and more optimum grow zones. Do the global math. This may take some planning in terms of moving the bread and rice baskets to the optimized global places, and also some bio-engineering for plants that are more tolerant to heat, water and drought. But all and all, more food and more rain allows for more people.

The problem is the propaganda of fear is used to manipulate and brain wash so you cannot see the potential. The climate bogeyman effect is similar to watching an airliner crash all over TV news. This is tragic, but the propaganda will fixated on the crash du jour, while ignoring the 100,000 safe flights on that same day. The brain; by being fed the stacked data of fear, will be led to think in a very narrow way and lose optimism. The one crash can then be sold, as a terrible new trend, so the court of public opinion, can be used like a club, to bully the airlines, as though this one crash is a system wide defect. Nothing good can happen, unless we throw a money offering to the gods of paranoia; bring out the machine that goes bing!

I do not accept this religion, since the pastors are all con artists, using limited stacked facts, to draw exaggerated fear conclusions.

For example, I did a google search for how many people, so far, have drowned as a direct result of the oceans rising? The ocean are rising has been a prediction by the consensus of science for decades. I wanted a few names and how many confirmed examples, where say people jump in the water, where they used to wade, and drown due to the deeper water. There were none.

All I could find is "risk" which is bogeyman speak; imaginary scenarios without tangible examples. That is not real. Obviously, since there are no names or tangible examples, I guess the ocean rising, is not too hard to avoid, since it is glacial in terms of pace. Lava is faster. Why all the bogeyman fear of the oceans rising? Are you picturing the flood of Noah 2, happening of all sudden?

I know people who love horror movies and love to be scared and even groused out by the gore. Maybe the bogeyman effect is related. Some people want to leave reality and be afraid. I suppose fear will increase adrenaline and adrenaline can help motive you like a drug, that can be addictive. It can also help people come to a focus, in the here and now, where it is hard to optimistic due to data overload.

 

[Sargonski]

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

What rule did I make up ? --- and your number of 3 kids or more to stop population decline is not just made up, but irrelevant to the question on the table .. which is that Population increase is a central part of the Ocean Pollution and Global Warming equation.

I never said combatting pollution, population growth, industrialization of non industrialized populations has any chance of success given current global leadership. I merely told you what need to be done .. outlined the simple science .. which is

Population Growth (which comes from non industrialized populations) + Industrialization of non industrialized populations over the last 30 years has as resulted in a massive increase to Ocean Pollution .. and increased CO2 from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons/year.

as such .. your claim that population growth is naturally good and having a positive impact on humanity is simply false under current conditions .. and ridiculous in light of lack of constraints .. obviously unlimited population growth would become negative at some point resulting in a fruit fly experiment.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Population Growth (which comes from non industrialized populations) + Industrialization of non industrialized populations over the last 30 years has as resulted in a massive increase to Ocean Pollution .. and increased CO2 from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons/year.

You cite "population growth" as being the cause..
..but it is NOT .. it is industrialization & global economics.

Naturally population is correlated with man-made climate-change .. how could it
not be?
I think that people look for a scape-goat, so as to continue with their way of life.
In that way, they can tell themselves they have little blame.

 

[Sargonski]

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.


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

"Scientific technological progress would be "Severely hampered" by a loss of population growth" is claimed defacto - on the basis of specialiation. and then go on to accuse others of just making up the rules as they go.

Log out of own eye might be the remedy .. as your claim 1) false .. the incremental theoretical gain ... is by no means guaranteed over a set period of time .. and certainly not in the context of this period of time .. 2) that gain in context is insignificant to the technological progress .. even if it was shown to defacto exist .. which hyou have not done .. but it matters not because it is both insignificant .. and irrelevant to the issue of the Damage being caused by Population growth ... nor a mitigating factor of any significant amount.

No "severe hampering" to be worried about .. especially since all that population growth is concentrated solely among the rice eaters .. who will contribute Zero to the equation .. sans the occasional escapee .. canceled out by the law of large numbers .. to another order of magnitude over a bar we already hit.

 

[Sargonski]

You cite "population growth" as being the cause..
..but it is NOT .. it is industrialization & global economics.

Naturally population is correlated with man-made climate-change .. how could it
not be?
I think that people look for a scape-goat, so as to continue with their way of life.
In that way, they can tell themselves they have little blame.

Wrong - I cite Population growth (of non industrialized populations) in conjunction with industrialization of non industrialized populations .. as the Cause of 1) a Ocean Pollution and 2) CO2 increase from 22 Billion tons/yr emmitted to 36 Billion tons/year.

which you then go on to confirm agreement with the premise "population growth is a cause" .... contradicting your initial claim that it is not a Cause .. "The Cause" a silly way to word things in context of the conversation. If you mean "The Sole Cause" then say that .. but, that is certainily not what I said .. ands thus strawman fallacy.

Population growth .. in the system being observed .. all of which occurred over .. the non industrialized portion .. coupled with industrialization of these populations .. is the messing up the environment .. big time. Yet our environmental policy does not understand this simple equation .. doubling down on outsourcing our economies to these nations .. in doing so transferring our pollution problems "over there " .. a policy of "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean"

 

[muhammad_isa]

..which you then go on to confirm agreement with the premise "population growth is a cause" .... contradicting your initial claim that it is not a Cause ..

I thought you might do that..

I did NOT say it was a cause .. I said it was correlated.
What I mean by that, is that we are discussing man-made climate-change, so if there were no people, it follows that there could BE no man-made climate-change.

..but that is not the same as saying "there are too many people, and that is why we have man-made climate-change".
..because that is NOT the reason. The reason is due to global economics and industrialization.
In other words, it is not INEVITABLE, that man-made climate-change must occur, just because mankind exists.

Is that clearer now?

 

[Quintessence]

..but that is not the same as saying "there are too many [humans], and that is why we have [human]-made climate-change".
..because that is NOT the reason. The reason is due to global economics and industrialization.

This isn't an either-or, it's both-and with interdependencies. See:

I = PAT - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Climate change is absolutely symptomatic of too many humans. It is also symptomatic of too much affluence (aka, consumption per capita). And it is also symptomatic of too much technology (aka, energy intensiveness of consumption). All must be addressed to reduce environmental impact. There was a study I ran across recently that mentioned that all the progress we've made in reducing consumption and transitioning to renewables has been offset by continued population inflation. All must be reduced in tandem. Or not, and the gods will do it for us because our species has collectively decided it is a good idea to ignore carrying capacity limits and pillage the planet into being unsuitable for present levels of biodiversity, humans included. Humans are stupid like that.

 

[Sargonski]

I thought you might do that..

I did NOT say it was a cause .. I said it was correlated.
What I mean by that, is that we are discussing man-made climate-change, so if there were no people, it follows that there could BE no man-made climate-change.

..but that is not the same as saying "there are too many people, and that is why we have man-made climate-change".
..because that is NOT the reason. The reason is due to global economics and industrialization.
In other words, it is not INEVITABLE, that man-made climate-change must occur, just because mankind exists.

Is that clearer now?

Well if you don't say population growth is a cause .. then you are wrong .. but I never accused you have that to begin with. Correct that if no people no man made climate change .. but that .. while part of the discussion was not the main part. The main part of my discussion was Ocean Pollution .. also caused by man . .. and the quickest horse in this two horse race to the abyss.

and yes .. this is the same as saying there are too many people .. when I say that the rate of ocean pollution from this amount of people . is going to have catastrophic effect to the Ocean within 30 years .. if current practice is maintained .. and there is no reason to believe that it will not be maintained .. and regardless of what is going on with "Climate Change" .. Florida flooding in 200 years.. The Ocean disaster is happening right now . we are already at the "Florida is flooding" part of the story .. so not only inevitable .. but already here .. no need to wait for the Earth to warm up

The inevitable is happening as we speak .. the toilet overflowing .. more garbage in than the Ocean can digest .. the increase in Ocean Pollution over the last 30 years .. can be 98% attributed to industrialization of non industrialized population .. and its growth.

What is also "inevitable" .. if the current climate is any indication .. that the Environmental Status Quo will be maintained for the next 10 years .. at which point these Ocean "hiccups" will becomes more intense .. when they will start giving lip service to the issue .. realizing that is far more pressing than CO2 .. and perhaps more dangerous . Dead zones increasing from 100 to 500 over the last 30 years of Asia industrialization .. one the size of the state of New Jersey is no joke friend.

do you know what a dead zone is ? .. more people .. more sewage .. u understand ? 1-1 causation .. don't even have to factor in industrialization .. and in fact industrialize these folks enough and that will help .. but not in our 30 year timeline - the other source of nitrogen is fertilizer run-off .. growing the food to feed another hungry mouth .. increasing with population growth - exacerbated by industrialization .. taking a bowl a day rice eater (1) to the consumption level of a first worlder (36)

The bacteria then use this nitrogen .. in the process using the Oxygen . creating an anoxic Dead Zone .. where coral, fish and marine life can not live. Best we not turn the Ocean into one big anoxic zone --- 60% or more of our oxygen comes from the ocean and it would suck to lose that supply .. right !! ..

The state of New Jersey Friend .. imagine you were on vacation and I told you .. "Dont go over there --- pointing to an area the size of NJ-State -- cause you can't breath .. no oxygen.. That would suck right !|?

 

[muhammad_isa]

This isn't an either-or, it's both-and with interdependencies..

..that is how it appears, on a worldly level..

Climate change is absolutely symptomatic of too many humans.

I disagree.
It's about life-style, which has drastically changed since the advent of industrialization.

All must be addressed to reduce environmental impact..

What needs addressing, is the global economic system .. but those who are in control
of it do not WANT to address it.
They are used to the lifestyle they have, and do not want to lose it.

There was a study I ran across recently that mentioned that all the progress we've made in reducing consumption and transitioning to renewables has been offset by continued population inflation.

..not population inflation, but the increasing industrialization globally.
It's much like pyramid sales .. it's not sustainable, and will all end in tears.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if current practice is maintained ..

Well, yes .. if we don't change the underlying economic system..

and there is no reason to believe that it will not be maintained .. and regardless of what is going on with "Climate Change" .. Florida flooding in 200 years.. The Ocean disaster is happening right now . we are already at the "Florida is flooding" part of the story .. so not only inevitable .. but already here .. no need to wait for the Earth to warm up..

Agreed .. it's happening as we speak.

..the other source of nitrogen is fertilizer run-off .. growing the food to feed another hungry mouth ..

..as I say, that's industrialization.
We are not responsible for feeding every person in the world .. only giving to the poor as
we are able.

One needs to understand how industrialization started in the FIRST place.
i.e. where did the capital come from

 

[Sargonski]

Well, yes .. if we don't change the underlying economic system..


Agreed .. it's happening as we speak.


..as I say, that's industrialization.
We are not responsible for feeding every person in the world .. only giving to the poor as
we are able.

One needs to understand how industrialization started in the FIRST place.
i.e. where did the capital come from

If we are not responsible for feeding the poor .. then who is ? .. and if it is no one.. then what inevitable consequence does shirking this duty lead to.

 

[Quintessence]

I disagree.
It's about life-style, which has drastically changed since the advent of industrialization.

You really, truly, genuinely don't understand how it's both?

I mean, this is basic mathematics. As simplified as the I = PAT equation is, it gets that point across.

Human Impact (I) = Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T)

If P = 200, and both A and T remain the same, I will be less than when P = 400. You can't just ignore the effect of population. Well, technically, you can, it'd just be missing a huge factor in human impacts on the environment. This is ecology 101 stuff, honestly, though I understand they don't really teach much of even ecology 101 in public schools. They don't teach students about population cycles of various organisms, what the limiting factors are, what happens when limiting factors are altered, etc. Or at least they didn't when I was going through the system. it probably should be covered, right alongside discussions about, say, the hydrologic cycle and the nitrogen cycle. One of the major lessons of ecology is to respect system limits of an environment to support a given population of organisms. A lesson that folks in my country do not want to hear for various reasons. There's the mythology that "numbers go up" is some unquestioned good. It really, really, really isn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You really, truly, genuinely don't understand how it's both?

It is quite OBVIOUS that population is involved .. I have already said.
However, can you explain to me why there are "too many people" on the planet?

Almighty God knows best .. He gives life, and takes life.

I mean, this is basic mathematics. As simplified as the I = PAT equation is, it gets that point across.

Human Impact (I) = Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T)

If P = 200, and both A and T remain the same, I will be less than when P = 400. You can't just ignore the effect of population.

..and this is assuming that we carry on as we are .. yes, I know.
..but that is highly unlikely.
There are limits to growth, and these factors will cause war, pestilence, climate-disasters etc.

Reducing population is no answer. The answer lies in reducing SIN !
..but that cannot be, in the long run .. mankind's nature is to sin. This life is finite..
..by design.

One of the major lessons of ecology is to respect system limits of an environment to support a given population of organisms. A lesson that folks in my country do not want to hear for various reasons. There's the mythology that "numbers go up" is some unquestioned good. It really, really, really isn't.

Well, I do .. respect the environment .. the natural environment that G-d has provided for us.