The world is massively overpopulated

[Valjean]

Stop all this about "food!"

Food's not the problem. Topsoil's the problem. Bauxite's the problem. Habitat's the problem. Petroleum's the problem. Pollution's the problem.

Unless the resourses we extract are replaced at at least the rate we're using them we're overpopulated. Unless air and water remain clean and abundant we're overpopulated. Unless there is sufficient habitat for all the other people of the world -- furred, finned or feathered, we're overpopulated.

 

[lilithu]

you've been brainwashed into thinking that it's overpopulated. there isn't a food shortage, if there was, you'd know it from your fridge and you wouldn't need a cnn reporter to tell you.

Um... there are food shortages. Just because you have food in your fridge doesn't mean that other people have food. sheesh. Even in the U.S. there are people who go to bed hungry. There are food shortages because of distribution problems, not because we aren't able to grow enough. There is food rotting in some places because the people who need it can't afford to buy it and we would rather see it rot than give it away.

And yes, Seyorni, I know food isn't the only issue. But the argument that there's no food shortage because his fridge is full needed to be addressed.

 

[gnomon]

The world is massively overpopulated.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Massively. No. I think that will apply the moment we see the breaking point and massive famines occur simultaneously around the world. All the famines we have witnessed in our time and recent history, even as devastating as they are, cannot be considered an indicator of worldwide overpopulation whereas other nations have stagnated growth rates, positive food production, advanced agricultural restoration and urban/rural development. We have witnessed localized events.

I do think the world is overpopulated for the lifestyles we live and other cultures are adopting. What can we do? I see no possibility of Western cultures denying their lifestyle and consumption to other nations. It will not be possible.

Earth abides and mankind is as much a part of nature no matter how we delude ourselves otherwise. Massive overpopulation, in my opinion, does not spell the end of humanity. It does mean that unchecked we will see billions suffer. Needlessly? We've already used technology to set up and maintain those populations we have now. Will further technological achievement find a solution to avoid suffering or just extend the timeline? Will the solution be the natural consequence in its most common and notable form...a plague?

On that incredibly happy note.....I'm going to watch people on YouTube set themselves on fire.

 

[Runt]

I read somewhere---I think in an article for my Science, Ethics and the Public class last semester---that the earth's critical capacity is 11 billion. We're not there yet. However, 11 billion people is what the earth can support provided humans learn to live in a way that optimizes our resources. Right now, we're most certainly not doing so, and if we don't learn to do so soon, we're going to find ourselves in a world of trouble, if you'll forgive the pun. But I do not think we have reached a state of crisis yet, and I also think it's possible for us to learn to live better.

 

[lilithu]

I read somewhere---I think in an article for my Science, Ethics and the Public class last semester---that the earth's critical capacity is 11 billion. We're not there yet. However, 11 billion people is what the earth can support provided humans learn to live in a way that optimizes our resources. Right now, we're most certainly not doing so, and if we don't learn to do so soon, we're going to find ourselves in a world of trouble, if you'll forgive the pun. But I do not think we have reached a state of crisis yet, and I also think it's possible for us to learn to live better.

Hi Runt, namaste.

Does the 11 billion take into account sufficient resources to maintain biodiversity, a point that Seyorni has rightly raised? Just curious.

I do think that we are at a crisis state, but that's because of global warming. And that's because of our (U.S.) lifestyle, not global population. We have only 5% of the world's population but we use 25% of the world's fossil fuels and put out 25% of the world's carbon gases.

 

[Somkid]

Stop all this about "food!"

Food's not the problem. Topsoil's the problem. Bauxite's the problem. Habitat's the problem. Petroleum's the problem. Pollution's the problem.

Unless the resourses we extract are replaced at at least the rate we're using them we're overpopulated. Unless air and water remain clean and abundant we're overpopulated. Unless there is sufficient habitat for all the other people of the world -- furred, finned or feathered, we're overpopulated.

Yep, I'll go along with that.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Agree.

According to The Botany of Desire by David Suzuki, the world could sustain about 3 billion people living in an earth-mindful lifestyle designed by one of his....I forget.

 

[Runt]

Hi Runt, namaste.

Does the 11 billion take into account sufficient resources to maintain biodiversity, a point that Seyorni has rightly raised? Just curious.

Hi back, hehe, and namaste.

The article I vaguely recall reading (it was one of those assignments I didn't devote much energy to :/) seemed to be suggesting that by optimizing our use of the world's resources, we'd be doing 2 things. First, we'd be ensuring the continued availability of those resources---organic and inorganic---which human beings need for survival. Second, we'd be unfortunately ignoring the needs of species which are not necessary to human survival. Thus, a rather scary picture: We'd have biodiversity, yes, but only the kind of diversity necessary to sustain humankind. Species which are not critical to continued human survival would likely be crowded out as our species monopolized all the world's resources. So overall, there would be less biodiversity. Obviously, this is NOT okay. And in some ways, looking at the question of overpopulation from this point of view requires us to redefine, to a certain degree, what constitutes overpopulation. Is overpopulation when people cannot be sustained by the world's resources? Or is it when people and other species cannot be sustained by the world's resources. The article suggests the latter, but I suspect if we adopt the former definition, we're getting closer and closer to critical capacity every day.

I do think that we are at a crisis state, but that's because of global warming. And that's because of our (U.S.) lifestyle, not global population. We have only 5% of the world's population but we use 25% of the world's fossil fuels and put out 25% of the world's carbon gases.

I definitely agree with you here. I should have qualified, before, that I don't think we're at a crisis state yet with global population. I do, however, think we're in a bad way in terms of global warming. And many people the world over are starving, or being exploited by richer and more powerful nations. While I don't think that there has been an escalation in this particular crisis, I do believe it is a crisis. And rising population certainly contributes to that crisis, although it does not, alone, cause it or constitute a crisis yet in and of itself.

 

[Willamena]

Can I have a burrito?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

How can the world be massively overpopulated when the majority of the world's land is underdeveloped?

 

[lilithu]

How can the world be massively overpopulated when the majority of the world's land is underdeveloped?

Yup, that's what the world is here for, for us to "develop" it. If every square inch of earth hasn't been made into a suburban development or factory farm, it's obviously being wasted.

We really need to teach more systems ecology in schools. This shouldn't be taught to just bio majors because all the non-bio majors vote too. :cover:

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Yup, that's what the world is here for, for us to "develop" it. If every square inch of earth hasn't been made into a suburban development or factory farm, it's obviously being wasted.

Yeah, 'develop,' let people live propserous lives free from disease, hunger, and war. People who support measures that restrict development wonder why housing prices rise and people go to war over resources in other countries.

 

[lilithu]

Yeah, 'develop,' let people live propserous lives free from disease, hunger, and war. People who support measures that restrict development wonder why housing prices rise and people go to war over resources in other countries.

I'm all for economic development in poorer countries so that they can raise their standards of living. In fact, I think we should devote much more money to it than we do (which is currently close to nothing). I am glad to hear that you agree.

That doesn't mean that I think that the whole world should be developed. In other words, there needs to be forests that are not cut down (in our country as well as others). There needs to be room for biodiversity. Heck, there needs to be room for all the garbage that we create! Unless you consider landfills "development." :sarcastic

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

I'm all for economic development in poorer countries so that they can raise their standards of living. In fact, I think we should devote much more money to it than we do, which is currently close to nothing.

We are in complete agreement. We should envourage foreign investment in poor countries. Too bad the Democratic Party is a the 'fair' trade party and opts for protectionist economic policies thus keeping poor nations in poverty.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

And another thing, for poor countries to raise their standard of living they have to industrialize.

 

[Runt]

We should envourage foreign investment in poor countries. Too bad the Democratic Party is a the 'fair' trade party and opts for protectionist economic policies thus keeping poor nations in poverty.

Yes, because laying claim to other countries' natural resources---and then taking advantage of their poverty and need by paying them wages which ensure they remain in poverty and need while we get richer, fatter, claim more resources and exploit more people--- totally helps developing countries get out of poverty.

 

[Willamena]

The world is massively overpopulated.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Not by fungi, it's not.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

Yes, because laying claim to other countries' natural resources---and then taking advantage of their poverty and need by paying them wages that ensure they remain in poverty and need while we get richer and fatter and claim more resources and exploit more people--- totally helps developing countries get out of poverty.

How does restricting poor countries from selling their goods to the richest market (the U.S.) help lift them out of poverty?

 

[Runt]

How does restricting poor countries from selling their goods to the richest market (the U.S.) help lift them out of poverty?

It doesn't restrict them, it restricts us from taking advantage of their need. If we want to buy from them, fine, but we need to pay them honestly... just as we need to pay people in this country honestly even if they're poor enough that they're willing to work literally for nickels and dimes. When people are living in poverty, they will be willing to sell their labor for any small price, even if sustains them in only the most pitiful way. But that doesn't mean we have a right to take advantage of them.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Runt,

It doesn't restrict them, it restricts us from taking advantage of their need. If we want to buy from them, fine, but we need to pay them honestly... just as we need to pay people in this country honestly even if they're poor enough that they're willing to work literally for nickels and dimes. When people are living in poverty, they will be willing to sell their labor for any small price, even if sustains them in only the most pitiful way. But that doesn't mean we have a right to take advantage of them.

You do realize that making imports more expensive (by the protectionist policies) people buy less of them. That means the poor country stays poor. That doesn't help the poor, it actually hurts them.