Convince me that the world isn't overpopulated

[Valjean]

The question I don't see being answered in this thread is a simple one, and ought to have occurred to everyone participating: "If the world is over-populated, what is your proposed solution?"

Should we kill some? Which ones?
Should we restrict some people from having children? Which people?
Should we send some to Mars? Who, and where do we get the ship?

Traditionally, people have depended on children as social insurance, to support them in hard times or old age. Good government could more reliably do this job.
Large families confer the status and power to dissuade exploitation by competing families of groups. Government could insure fair play.

If people felt secure and unthreatened as individuals, the need and social pressure for family support would diminish. People would realize the financial benefit and increased social and employment flexibility of a child-free life. Population would diminish

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm chiming in on this & haven't read through all the posts in this thread (yet), so if my inquiry has already been addressed, please just let me know or refer me to the post number(s).

I have 3 questions:

1. How do you define overpopulation?
2. How do you define poverty?
3. Is "overpopulation is a cause of poverty" a conclusion from an argument that you have already presented & if not, what's your argument or reasoning for drawing such a conclusion?

Human activities have a huge impact on the ecosystems.
Human activities increase exponentially with the rise of the population.
The fewer, the better.
Because all people deserve a house, warm water, electricity and so on.
Electricity is produced at cost of incredibly damages towards natural ecosystems.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If farmers were able to take good care of their topsoil, then we wouldn't have enough food for everyone..

I don't believe that..
It's more a case of some people consuming more than their fair share

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because all people deserve a house, warm water, electricity and so on.
Electricity is produced at cost of incredibly damages towards natural ecosystems.

Mmm .. and that is why the financial system is the main cause.

It is causing mass migration to industrialized countries, where the consumption of electricity
is greater .. eg. to colder climes

 

[Stevicus]

We can .. but not to the extent that there are haves and have-nots i.e. mass, global financial imbalance
After all, the G7 is not rich due to natural reserves .. mmm?

I tend to agree here. As long as there's enough resources for everyone to have a comfortable life with modern conveniences that the average family might enjoy in the West, then it wouldn't bother me too much if the G7 still had more money. It's not about the money, which is really just a number. It's about the stuff. Just make sure everyone has enough stuff, then there should be fewer problems.

 

[icehorse]

These may be issues the world is facing, but I don't believe it's accurate to blame science and technology for the lack of solutions. Solutions do in fact exist, and the only reason I can think of for why those solutions aren't being implemented is because of government bans that were probably the result of religious zealotry.

I wasn't blaming science. Science can do only so much. I'm blaming overpopulation.

As for solutions, can you share the solutions you know about to restore / maintain topsoil and also to replenish our freshwater aquifers?

 

[icehorse]

I tend to agree here. As long as there's enough resources for everyone to have a comfortable life with modern conveniences that the average family might enjoy in the West, then it wouldn't bother me too much if the G7 still had more money. It's not about the money, which is really just a number. It's about the stuff. Just make sure everyone has enough stuff, then there should be fewer problems.

I think we're all agreed that there are severe economic imbalances in the world.

But ecological overshoot is happening regardless of economics. For example, if somehow everyone started using only the amount of resources that the poorest countries use per capita, that would slow down overshoot, but we'd still be in overshoot.

The only way civilization survives is if we find graceful, compassionate, fair ways to reduce the population substantially. The good news is that it's possible. The bad news is that humans don't seem willing to make sacrifices for future generations

 

[muhammad_isa]

But ecological overshoot is happening regardless of economics..

You can't say that .. we only know the result of current economic practices.

For example, if somehow everyone started using only the amount of resources that the poorest countries use per capita, that would slow down overshoot, but we'd still be in overshoot..

That's a proverbial "if" which is not relevant or even sane.
As I say, we are subject to the current economic forces.

The only way civilization survives is if we find graceful, compassionate, fair ways to reduce the population substantially.

Your opinion, from your viewpoint.
When govts./people start telling people whether they should have children or not,
I personally think they've overstepped the mark.

Not only that, but experience shows that it doesn't work in practice ( eg. China and its restrictions)

 

[anotherneil]

I wasn't blaming science. Science can do only so much. I'm blaming overpopulation.

You're either dodging, ignoring, or perhaps not getting my issues of contention, but that's fine; we can just move on to discussing solutions.

As for solutions, can you share the solutions you know about to restore / maintain topsoil and also to replenish our freshwater aquifers?

In a general sense, I already established what the solution is, which is to let the free-market system find solutions; it has a well-established track record for doing this. Religion and government, on the other hand (and as I already showed), has a well-established track record for causing and preventing solutions. Sometimes the solution is simply to do nothing more than get government and religion out of the way.

As for specific solutions for fresh water and topsoil (and I'm only going to focus to the ones pertaining to population sustainability, since that's what this thread is about), there are ways to produce fresh water such as using reverse osmosis with seawater; with the topsoil issue, the basic problem for population sustainability is food production, and some of the solutions for this are aquaponics, hydroponics, and vertical farming; there are also red and blue LED grow lights, which are energy efficient for indoor gardening.

One thing to clarify what I mean by free-market system; I'm not talking about something like anarcho-capitalism at all. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron; you either have anarchism, or capitalism, but not both. As long as there's capitalism, money, trade, markets, and scarcity in general, there's an economic need for the state, government, and laws, but only to function as a referee that respects rights and protects victims, not to impose central planning and command & control of the economy. That's what economic socialism is, and at best it scales up very poorly from a population larger than Dunbar's number.

 

[icehorse]

You can't say that .. we only know the result of current economic practices.

Humans need a minimum amount of resources to survive, regardless of economic systems. An economic system does NOT for example, change how much water it takes to grow 50kg of beans.

We need certain amounts of good land to grow food, doesn't matter what government is in charge.

I get that we have huge economic problems. Personally I think the global oligarchy is one of top concerns we should have. But all of that is a different topic.

That's a proverbial "if" which is not relevant or even sane.
As I say, we are subject to the current economic forces.

No. The amount of land and water it takes to grow food is well known. Economic forces do not apply to how a plant grows.

Your opinion, from your viewpoint.
When govts./people start telling people whether they should have children or not,
I personally think they've overstepped the mark.

Not only that, but experience shows that it doesn't work in practice ( eg. China and its restrictions)

Earlier I offered an alternative way to motivate women to have fewer children. I agree that government mandates are a horrible, horrible approach, and I'm not advocating for that.

 

[icehorse]

You're either dodging, ignoring, or perhaps not getting my issues of contention, but that's fine; we can just move on to discussing solutions.

I do not "dodge". If you think I've missed a point, I won't take offense if you reiterate it.

In a general sense, I already established what the solution is, which is to let the free-market system find solutions; it has a well-established track record for doing this

Science has allowed us to delay the inevitable, no doubt. But there will be a point at which there are hard limits to what science can achieve. And why? Why, why, why do humans need to continue to grow their populations?

I want to live on a planet where we appreciate nature. Where we think that an eagle's life is as valuable as ours. The more we populate, the more other species go extinct. And even if you don't care about other species, they are CRUCIAL to our survival. For example, if we make bees extinct, humans will follow shortly thereafter. And we DO NOT KNOW the complete ecosystem that bees need to survive.

As for specific solutions for fresh water and topsoil (and I'm only going to focus to the ones pertaining to population sustainability, since that's what this thread is about), there are ways to produce fresh water such as using reverse osmosis with seawater; with the topsoil issue, the basic problem for population sustainability is food production, and some of the solutions for this are aquaponics, hydroponics, and vertical farming; there are also red and blue LED grow lights, which are energy efficient for indoor gardening.

The math is very, very poor for this sort of solution. Yes, osmosis works. But it takes equipment, and mining, and so on to produce, and it's many, many orders of magnitude too small to handle the needs of 8 billion people. Consider that it takes over 2000 gallons of fresh water to make a pound of beef. Chicken is a little better, only 500 gallons. Vegetables are better but it still requires many gallons of fresh water to produce a pound of veggies.

One thing to clarify what I mean by free-market system; I'm not talking about something like anarcho-capitalism at all. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron; you either have anarchism, or capitalism, but not both. As long as there's capitalism, money, trade, markets, and scarcity in general, there's an economic need for the state, government, and laws, but only to function as a referee that respects rights and protects victims, not to impose central planning and command & control of the economy. That's what economic socialism is, and at best it scales up very poorly from a population larger than Dunbar's number.

This is a good topic for a separate thread!

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. The amount of land and water it takes to grow food is well known. Economic forces do not apply to how a plant grows..

It is not as simplistic as you think.
You are computing "global food output" and "global food need", and coming up with these
conclusions of yours.

It is the economic system that CREATES these statistics .. CREATES the pop.growth .. CREATES where
people live .. CREATES what people do for a living etc. etc.

Earlier I offered an alternative way to motivate women to have fewer children.

You are "making an offer" ?

The population will rise and/or fall, whatever you and I say or do.

 

[Sargonski]

Overpopulation is not a problem. We already have the knowledge and resources necessary to feed a population of 8 billion people. Indeed we could feed over 10 billion just using existing technologies and in a sustained manner. In addition malnutrition has been and will continue to drop. Humanity is on the cusp of a new golden age of plenty.

The problem with Overpopulation is not feeding 10 Billion people by 2050. It is the biproducts of consumption that is destroying the planet .. Ocean Pollution being the fastest horse in the race to the abyss at present.

"cusp of a new golden age of Plenty" .. we have been in that age for quite some time mate .. as you say .. no problem in feeding 8 Billion mouths .. the problem is when all those mouths want Steak and Lobster for Dinner .... and cheap T-Shirts from China .. clean energy from Nigeria.

 

[icehorse]

The population will rise and/or fall, whatever you and I say or do.

And if enough people think that way, which they probably will, then we're most certainly doomed.

Here comes a mad-max world

 

[Sargonski]

But if we all move to one island and leave the rest for them.... as Covid quarantines proved, several species rebound nicely when humans aren't around to mess things up

Look what happened to the Air quality in China when everything shut down due to Covid ..

 

[muhammad_isa]

And if enough people think that way, which they probably will, then we're most certainly doomed..

Well, we are doomed .. but not due to overpopulation..
No .. there are plenty of other things to worry about .. such as climate-change, war, natural disasters,
famine, drought .. you name it.

However, I do believe that one day, mankind will bounce back .. but only to finally, lose our way once more .. and that will be it .. finito .. no more mankind.

 

[icehorse]

Well, we are doomed .. but not due to overpopulation..
No .. there are plenty of other things to worry about .. such as climate-change, war, natural disasters,
famine, drought .. you name it.

However, I do believe that one day, mankind will bounce back .. but only to finally, lose our way once more .. and that will be it .. finito .. no more mankind.

Well overpopulation is probably the main reason for: climate change, drought, famine...

So I guess we're sort-of agreed

 

[Valjean]

In a general sense, I already established what the solution is, which is to let the free-market system find solutions; it has a well-established track record for doing this. Religion and government, on the other hand (and as I already showed), has a well-established track record for causing and preventing solutions. Sometimes the solution is simply to do nothing more than get government and religion out of the way.

The free (ie: unregulated) market is one of the major causes of the problem. It has little interest in finding solutions. There's no profit in it. They are more motivated by increasing production and the next quarter's market returns.
Only government has the power to monitor and regulate this.

Government has a long history if trust-busting, market and environmental regulation. It's been since the Neoliberal revolution/Reaganomics that government has been captured by the Banks and corporations, and protective regulations rolled back.

As for specific solutions for fresh water and topsoil (and I'm only going to focus to the ones pertaining to population sustainability, since that's what this thread is about), there are ways to produce fresh water such as using reverse osmosis with seawater;

And what's to be done with the waste brine?

with the topsoil issue, the basic problem for population sustainability is food production, and some of the solutions for this are aquaponics, hydroponics, and vertical farming; there are also red and blue LED grow lights, which are energy efficient for indoor gardening.

These are good ideas, but are they feasible everywhere? What' going to motivate corporations to spend the capital to fund such large multinational projects? It's like pulling teeth just to get them to install scrubbers on the stacks of their existing coal plants.

As long as there's capitalism, money, trade, markets, and scarcity in general, there's an economic need for the state, government, and laws, but only to function as a referee that respects rights and protects victims, not to impose central planning and command & control of the economy.

But who's advocating that? It had a pretty poor record in the USSR and Red China.
Government, as regulator of consumer and environmental protection, a bulwark against monopoly, &c, is what corporatists and captive government opportunists have been attempting to "drown in the bathtub" for the past 40 years.

"Free trade" = freedom from regulation, and a return to the exploitative, wild West economy that preceeded the Great Depression and subsequent rise of Authoritarianism.

That's what economic socialism is, and at best it scales up very poorly from a population larger than Dunbar's number.

It scaled up pretty well in the US and western Europe during the post war years -- at least until Reagan and Thatcher's anti-government deregulation began
undermining the prosperity, security and opportunity of the 99%, and the money began 'trickling up' to the one-percenters.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well overpopulation is probably the main reason for: climate change, drought, famine...

So I guess we're sort-of agreed

What comes first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[Valjean]

Well, we are doomed .. but not due to overpopulation..
No .. there are plenty of other things to worry about .. such as climate-change, war, natural disasters,
famine, drought .. you name it.
Aren't these results of our exponential growth, and aren't these only going to increase as long as our economy depends on perpetual growth and growing population?

At some point we're going to run short of the natural resources fueling this growth of population and standard-of-living; or environmental collapse will initiate a new dark age.