Convince me that the world isn't overpopulated

[Balthazzar]

Is there a point in attempting to convince you otherwise? My take? Life happens, and while some people choose to have kids, others don't. The reasons vary per individual making the decisions, but a few of these are things such as ability to provide, potential quality of life for kid/s and family, etc. Over population concerns seem to be a concerning thing for some types. I'm not one of them, although I am the type with aforementioned concerns about quality of life and ability to provide, so ... maybe it works out naturally. We're seeing a greater number of coming out types who don't plan on having children anyway. I honestly don't think we're overpopulated, but I do think times are tough and that there's a lot of uncertainty attached to the future of our progeny and potential progeny.

 

[Valjean]

Is there a point in attempting to convince you otherwise? My take? Life happens, and while some people choose to have kids, others don't. The reasons vary per individual making the decisions, but a few of these are things such as ability to provide, potential quality of life for kid/s and family, etc. Over population concerns seem to be a concerning thing for some types. I'm not one of them, although I am the type with aforementioned concerns about quality of life and ability to provide, so ... maybe it works out naturally. We're seeing a greater number of coming out types who don't plan on having children anyway. I honestly don't think we're overpopulated, but I do think times are tough and that there's a lot of uncertainty attached to the future of our progeny and potential progeny.

We're using resources faster than they can be replaced, the extinction level is through the roof, the ocean's becoming habitable only by jellyfish, the climate is changing faster than life can adapt -- and we're not overpopulated?

How would we recognize overpopulation if it were to happen, in your opinion? What would signal overpopulation?

 

[Balthazzar]

We're using resources faster than they can be replaced, the extinction level is through the roof, the ocean's becoming habitable only by jellyfish, the climate is changing faster than life can adapt -- and we're not overpopulated?

How would we recognize overpopulation if it were to happen, in your opinion? What would signal overpopulation?

I don't buy into the overpopulation fears. At least not yet. I'll assume you're being fictitious about jelly fish only oceans. In some parts of the world? Yeah sure, maybe but as a whole? ... not yet.

 

[Valjean]

I don't buy into the overpopulation fears. At least not yet. I'll assume you're being fictitious about jelly fish only oceans. In some parts of the world? Yeah sure, maybe but as a whole? ... not yet.

You haven't noticed or read about rising sea levels? desertification? rising temperatures? retreating glaciers? decreasing snowpack? drying rivers and wells? destruction of rainforest? pollution, warming and acidification of the seas? What about the melting permafrost and the massive amounts of CO2 and CH4 being released? These have been in the news for years.
Do you not find these things worrisome?
How about mass migrations of climate refugees, which have already become problematic? How about wars over good territory or resources?

Serious question: What, in your view, would be the effect on Europe if the continued melting of Greenland's ice cap were to shut down the Atlantic Conveyor?

Seas full of jellyfish -- only partly tongue-in-cheek:

Jellyfish: The Next King of the Sea

As the world's oceans are degraded, will they be dominated by jellyfish?

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

 

[Balthazzar]

You haven't noticed or read about rising sea levels? desertification? rising temperatures? retreating glaciers? decreasing snowpack? drying rivers and wells? destruction of rainforest? pollution, warming and acidification of the seas? What about the melting permafrost and the massive amounts of CO2 and CH4 being released? These have been in the news for years.
Do you not find these things worrisome?
How about mass migrations of climate refugees, which have already become problematic? How about wars over good territory or resources?

Serious question: What, in your view, would be the effect on Europe if the continued melting of Greenland's ice cap were to shut down the Atlantic Conveyor?

Seas full of jellyfish -- only partly tongue-in-cheek:

Jellyfish: The Next King of the Sea

As the world's oceans are degraded, will they be dominated by jellyfish?

www.smithsonianmag.com

Aware of these I am, but the Jelly fish only oceans seem a far fetched scenario. An increase in population? Sure. An over population? In some areas I'm sure. The migrations continue on, and very likely always will. For as long as a need exist and resources deplete, there will be migrations. This doesn't concern me nearly as much as some types. Adaptations and everchanging landscapes are nothing new. Problematic they may be, but they're nothing new.

 

[Valjean]

Aware of these I am, but the Jelly fish only oceans seem a far fetched scenario. An increase in population? Sure. An over population? In some areas I'm sure. The migrations continue on, and very likely always will. For as long as a need exist and resources deplete, there will be migrations. This doesn't concern me nearly as much as some types. Adaptations and everchanging landscapes are nothing new. Problematic they may be, but they're nothing new.

OK. forget the jellyfish. Consider it a metaphor.
But the rate and extent of change is something new, and plants and animals are often not able to adapt to it.

 

[Balthazzar]

OK. forget the jellyfish. Consider it a metaphor.
But the rate and extent of change is something new, and plants and animals are often not able to adapt to it.

In Florida, we have non indigenous species wreaking havoc in the Everglades. The ecosystem has become imbalanced, but it's not overpopulation that's occurring. It's the introduction of a new species in an area that hasn't yet adapted to the species introduction. I'm guessing the dynamics in the food chain order will determine the outcome. I'm uncertain if any indigenous are truly at risk for extinction, though. The balance shifts as our environments change. It's survival of the fittest and adaptation illustrated, everglade style. Granted, this isn't a climatic event causing the changes, but it is similar. Have you ever thought to consider the introduction of new technology to be a precursor for similar types of changes in adaption and survival?

 

[Valjean]

In Florida, we have non indigenous species wreaking havoc in the Everglades. The ecosystem has become imbalanced, but it's not overpopulation that's occurring. It's the introduction of a new species in an area that hasn't yet adapted to the species introduction. I'm guessing the dynamics in the food chain order will determine the outcome.

Yes, invasive species are a serious problem, as well. That doesn't affect the seriousness or rapidity of climate change. Nothing this rapid has happened in 65,000,000 years. Few species can adapt fast enough.

A catstrophic tipping point could occur at any time, could it not? Are you aware of the various problems greenhouse gasses are causing?

How many species are we losing?

How many species are we losing?

wwf.panda.org

I'm uncertain if any indigenous are truly at risk for extinction, though. The balance shifts as our environments change. It's survival of the fittest and adaptation illustrated, everglade style.

I don't think you're aware of the extent and rapidity of the changes, or the specifics, for that matter.

Granted, this isn't a climatic event causing the changes, but it is similar. Have you ever thought to consider the introduction of new technology to be a precursor for similar types of changes in adaption and survival?

Right now it's the rapidly accumulating greenhouse gasses that pose th most pressing, existential threat.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes, invasive species are a serious problem, as well. That doesn't affect the seriousness or rapidity of climate change. Nothing this rapid has happened in 65,000,000 years. Few species can adapt fast enough.

A catstrophic tipping point could occur at any time, could it not? Are you aware of the various problems greenhouse gasses are causing?

How many species are we losing?

How many species are we losing?

wwf.panda.org

I don't think you're aware of the extent and rapidity of the changes, or the specifics, for that matter.

Right now it's the rapidly accumulating greenhouse gasses that pose th most pressing, existential threat.

Ok, apparently far too rapid to prep for it, and the effects are still uncertain as well as out of our sphere of control, so ... Choices and options in dealing with these rapid changes are what exactly?

 

[muhammad_isa]

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?"

It isn't (overpopulated) !

That is the excuse of the rich, for oppressing the poor.

 

[icehorse]

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?

There are many humane, compassionate solutions. Here's one:

- any woman who reaches menopause having had zero babies gets a $500,000 retirement award.
- any woman who reaches menopause having had only one baby gets $250,000.

 

[icehorse]

It isn't (overpopulated) !

That is the excuse of the rich, for oppressing the poor.

How does that work? Why would lying about overpopulation oppress the poor?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How does that work? Why would lying about overpopulation oppress the poor?

Define "overpopulation"..

 

[icehorse]

Define "overpopulation"..

I think the most important thing we humans need to consider is how many people can our precious planet support in a sustainable fashion.

I suspect the number is no more than a billion people. These days we are using up our planet's finite resources faster than they can be replenished. This is simply not sustainable.

So overpopulation means more people than the planet can sustain.

 

[Kfox]

Alexandra Paul has always been wonderful at explaining how this is a problem.
And it's not a matter of space. The spaces are borderless. The problem is resources, since so many lands are unproductive and 8 billion people is an unsustainable number.
And besides that, world overpopulation has been causing nothing but social inequalities and maldistribution of wealth.

And the shocking thing is that when I was born, world population was 4 billion.
Now it has doubled. It has reached 8 billion, and I am still young.

Yet less people are starving, less people living in extreme poverty, and the poor have more resources today than ever before. Perhaps resources aren't the problem

 

[muhammad_isa]

These days we are using up our planet's finite resources faster than they can be replenished. This is simply not sustainable..

I totally agree..
..but that is NOT because there are "too many" people.
It is because our love of wealth is more important to us than anything else.
eg. people vote in democracies for economic policies, rather than other factors

So overpopulation means more people than the planet can sustain..

It is the richer nations(people) that are using the lion's share of natural resources.

..and the global financial system is causing mass emigration, which further
exacerbates the issue

 

[Stevicus]

I totally agree..
..but that is NOT because there are "too many" people.
It is because our love of wealth is more important to us than anything else.
eg. people vote in democracies for economic policies, rather than other factors


It is the richer nations(people) that are using the lion's share of natural resources.

..and the global financial system is causing mass emigration, which further
exacerbates the issue

It's true that there is a great love of wealth in the world, and that the wealthier nations are using the lion's share of natural resources. However, one thing to consider is that, over the past half century or longer, many people in the West have been wanting to help improve the conditions in the developing and underdeveloped world. That was one of the selling points behind globalization and the global economy, in that it would lead to greater economic growth and a better standard of living for the world as a whole. A lot of people and organizations have done some good work, to send food where people need it, to send aid to help develop infrastructure, better education, better housing, transportation.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's all well-intentioned, for the most part. Instead of living in makeshift hovels or tarpaper shacks, people can live in modern buildings, with all the comforts of home that we have come to enjoy in the West, including air conditioning.

I was reading an article a few years ago about a young professional in India, who had started making enough money to get himself a nice apartment with air conditioning - and that was a really big deal for him and his parents, who had never had air conditioning. India is a hot place, and there might be many more people who would enjoy the comfort of air conditioning. This would likely be true for many who live in the hot climate zones.

So, why can't we have a world where everyone gets to enjoy these nice comforts and luxuries which have practically become "necessities" in the West? Isn't that a worthwhile goal which would lead to a more stable and peaceful world? If it's not physically possible, either due to too many people, lack of resources, environmental consequences, or whatever the case may be, then what the heck have we been doing these past 50-100 years? Or even the past 30 years? Didn't someone think about these things before embarking on this globalist adventure?

 

[muhammad_isa]

A lot of people and organizations have done some good work, to send food where people need it, to send aid to help develop infrastructure, better education, better housing, transportation.

There's nothing wrong with this, it's all well-intentioned, for the most part..

Right .. and everything we do is judged by our intentions.
If our intention is to please God, then that is what it is.
If our intention is to help others with no ulterior motive, then that's what it is.
If our intention is to subdue the poor, then that is what it is.
etc.

Instead of living in makeshift hovels or tarpaper shacks, people can live in modern buildings, with all the comforts of home that we have come to enjoy in the West, including air conditioning..

I'm not suggesting that we live in caves and what not, I'm only saying that the cause is
imbalance due to the global financial system, and NOT "too many people".
i.e. it's based on usury (profit on money-lending)

So, why can't we have a world where everyone gets to enjoy these nice comforts and luxuries which have practically become "necessities" in the West?

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?

 

[icehorse]

I totally agree..
..but that is NOT because there are "too many" people.
It is because our love of wealth is more important to us than anything else.
eg. people vote in democracies for economic policies, rather than other factors


It is the richer nations(people) that are using the lion's share of natural resources.

..and the global financial system is causing mass emigration, which further
exacerbates the issue

I agree that our economic policies must change. I agree that wealthy countries use more than their fair share of resources.

But even if we fixed all of those problems, and we should, there would still be too many people on the planet.