Overpopulation is not a myth

[Nathan Struth]

Overpopulation is not a myth, I'm bad at explaining this and I need help to explain this to Morgan. If there are too many ducks in a pond, less ducks get food and some starve noticed as a symptom of overpopulation.

[The Architect]

Over population is in the beginning stages of a crisis, we havnt seen widespread famines or heard of crop failures. I dont think it will be a problem in my lifetime. In terms of space thats not a problem in the US, maybe in Asia.

[Jern_Sandyer]

My inner cynic's view of the situation.

By the time that operpopulation gets to a real bad problem in East Asia enough people while of died in Africa from famine, genocide, civil war and desiese (HIV, malaria...) that we can send some adventurus asians there and see if they can make any life there since they do have a added advantage of being from more advanced area of the globe (imagine africa gone asian). After Africa's filled (maybe even Antartica to a smaller extent) that is when population controls come in. Either that or we better start colonizing space.

[kubedawg]

Overpopulation IS a myth, it comes to personal choice no matter who you are to determine where you want to live/how many children you want to have.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Overpopulation is not a myth, I'm bad at explaining this and I need help to explain this to Morgan. If there are too many ducks in a pond, less ducks get food and some starve noticed as a symptom of overpopulation.

But we weren't talking about ducks, were we? We were talking about humans. As I already said, humans are not dumb animals. We have the power to alter our environment. We can control at will the "carrying capacity" of the Earth.

[JohnMK]

Hi Nathan,

Can a mother who hasn't adequate nutrition and calories, give birth to viable young? No. So how is the state of overpopulation achieved? One might respond quite that our present civilization is sustaining and growing its population by borrowing from the Earth's piggy bank of resources, and that someday we'll have a rude, catastrophic awakening. But the Earth-model is not static, my friend, you don't need to worry so much. Humans can and do find substitutions, much more efficiently I might add through free markets. They are found all the time, they are just deployed slowly (as needed), commensurate with the dwindling of whatever resource is becoming more scarce and thus more expensive. We have achieved remarkable advances in crop yield, and will continue to do so in the future.

There is plenty of food for everyone on Earth. What there isn't, in some areas of the world, is adequate wealth to procure it with at a level that you would be more comfortable with (15%+ bodyfat for all?). In these areas what's needed is proper governance that guarantees property rights and embraces free markets, then you'll see investment in their economies, and of course agriculture where feasible, and deployment of new and productive technologies. You'd also eventually see declining birth rate . . .

How free are people to emigrate the world's food-scarce areas, by the way?

[leftcider]

Nathan,

There are many much more valid arguments to the overpopulation argument than the famine one that you are making. For example, you could argue that increased population inevitably leads to habitat and ecosystem destruction. More people on the earth doesn't automatically mean more people starving, though, and hunger (though still a substantial problem) seems to have lessened despite (or because of) the increase in population.

I'd like to see some stronger opposition to Morgan's pro-pro-creative propaganda, which he is probably just propagating because of his sexual love for all things baby.

[Jern_Sandyer]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman But we weren't talking about ducks, were we? We were talking about humans. As I already said, humans are not dumb animals. We have the power to alter our environment. We can control at will the "carrying capacity" of the Earth.

Does the changing the carrying capacity include destroying our natural environment so far that when the Earth's population hits 10 billion which I would hazard to guess would be in about 2040-2050 we will start to run out of growing land as our cities will be so large and the effect of desertification by that point that they will be so much smaller that even with our rapidly advancing technology we wont be able to keep up with the demand. Also we will be loosing land as sea levels rise. Do you really want to loose what makes our natural wonders such as the forest laden North-Central Rocky mountains (Canada and Northern States area), the Amazon or South-East Asia's jungles due to increased forestation. Also our water resources are very finite hence the reason why water is such a high commodity today. Do you think that because so many people will die because they can't get basic resources means we can't get really over populated then your wrong!

The more humans mean that we drive more animals into endangerment or extinction which means limited biodiversity. Also on a related point when we loose the great forests of our planet do you plan on 'wasting energy' to filter oxygen so we can breathe or try to fit some green anywhere possible like in East Asia where the plant grass in flower pots? What type of life is it to be cramped in?

Also last time I checked people get irritable when squished together so do you plan on using the increased murder rate to keep the population down?

Sorry if my arguement is a bit unorganized but I had to get this out all at once and I have to go.

[JohnMK]

So we hit 10 billion, and then WHAMO, a billion or two people die? I don't think so. These changes are gradual, and the responses commensurate, tending towards equilibrium. The only way this wouldn't happen is if there were widespread government interference in the market, e.g. the kind that lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's. The other concerns you speak of are mainly a concern of regional population patterns and not global population. Regarding sea level rise, it won't impact the amount of arable land appreciably on a global scale. If you have a problem with water being a commodity then I'm not sure we can have a creditable discussion given our rather stark philosophical differences. I suspect that you lack confidence in the benevolence and utility of a free market, i.e. people.

[samsara15]

Eventually, we will reach a limit, no matter how long it takes. The population cannot continue to increase geometrically forever, and there is a limited amount of space and resources. Even the universe is finite in size. I suspect it will indeed be a very rude awakening, when we encounter that limit. Many cultures in the past have done so. The Anasazi, the Norse in Greenland, Easter Island, the Mayas, and many others.

[kingmea]

Quote by: JohnMK So we hit 10 billion, and then WHAMO, a billion or two people die? I don't think so. These changes are gradual, and the responses commensurate, tending towards equilibrium. The only way this wouldn't happen is if there were widespread government interference in the market, e.g. the kind that lead to the Great Depression of the 1930's. The other concerns you speak of are mainly a concern of regional population patterns and not global population. Regarding sea level rise, it won't impact the amount of arable land appreciably on a global scale. If you have a problem with water being a commodity then I'm not sure we can have a creditable discussion given our rather stark philosophical differences. I suspect that you lack confidence in the benevolence and utility of a free market, i.e. people.

------- Benevolence of the free market? You're acting like every nation can achieve equal economioc success as the US. The fact is the US is an imperialistic power---a hegemony. We are the number one power, and not from the benevolence of the free market.
------- Morgan-we can alter our environment, both negatively and positively. So far it's been spiralling downward, with no hint of cease. Global warming.
------- Humans are not gods, we cannot will the world to how we want it. You can simply refute that we can just stop using gasoline, but thats like a drunk who claims he can quit drinking whenever he wants.

[JohnMK]

Pretty much every modern estimate I've ever seen suggests around 9 billion people by 2050, with population growth getting slower and slower, probably approaching some kind of asymptote at between 9-10 billion people.

Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050

World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision Population Database

Worldmapper: The world as you've never seen it before

We owe far more of our economic success to the free market than to protectionist or imperialist U.S. tendencies. In fact, on balance we'd probably be better off without all that baggage. And so would the rest of the world.

Global warming will have to be dealt with, but this isn't strictly a problem of population. Per capita, the average U.S. resident emits 20 times (carbon) what the average Indian does. Admittedly, Indians are rather poor compared to us, but money doesn't always buy happiness, the adage goes. Cost of living is also commensurately lower for them. Our entire infrastructure is carbon based here in the U.S., but it needn't be so long-term. Technology is being developed that will enable us to transition away from rampant carbon emission, and new infrastructure will steadily be deployed in the developing economies that will enable them to continue growing their GDP' without growing their carbon emissions. This is all off in the future, however, probably by a decade or two. We'll see CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rise to probably 430-450 ppm before we see a negative second derivative on the concentration curve.

[samsara15]

We can sustain a stable population, if we plan well, and have an extremely organized world state. Unfortunately, humanity does not have a history of planning well. I don't think living in such a state would be a bundle of joy. The degree of freedom we enjoy now would be a thing of the past.

[Nathan Struth]

Morgan

Humans can't always compltely control everything. A symptom of overpopulation is destruction of habitat and look at what we're doing. Please answer.

[glycerine]

Is there really any possibility of a mass killing due to disease? Every scare (Anthrax, SARS) hasn't amounted to much in the long run..we seem to handle it too well for anything to be so utterly devastating in such a short amount of time as to knock out enough people to not be made up for by the normal birthrate.

[JohnMK]

The world is a habitat, 6.5 billion humans and growing, approaching an asymptotal peak of between 9-10 billion people. Sounds to me like this habitat's doing rather well for the dominant species (objectively so, at least instantaneously), a few pock marks and acne scars notwithstanding their overall solid physical health. Naturally (no pun intended), the environment responds to the presence of this dominant species and the whole pyramid of sub-species adjusts. That is in-process (always has been), it doesn't take our direct intervention.

In regards to pollution, those who own affected property should sue those responsible for polluting. Preserving a diversity of undeveloped areas might indeed benefit mankind but some environmentalists go overboard both in the scope of their demands and the means they would have taken to realize them.

What separates Nathan and Morgan is not mere facts (I'm inclined towards Morgan here), but an entirely different scope of importance. The extreme end of Nathan's approach is the sect in India who disdain in harming any living creature, such as insects, bacteria, and so on. Interestingly, they don't force their beliefs onto others. The opposite group probably sleeps better at night, understanding that natural selection implies that some will be selected against, and that this is right, just, and proper and we should do absolutely nothing to interfere beyond of course trying to optimize our own instantaneously non-vicarious personal well-being (even to the exclusion of that of our friends and mates). If this were a scale ranging from 0-10, I'd rate myself a 2.5. I suspect this is, in fact, just the figure chosen by natural selection. Too myopic or too selfless, neither of these is particularly advantageous in survival. 2.5 is Goldilocks, in general. As yet the evidence isn't such that this particular issue merits substantial exception.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Morgan Humans can't always compltely control everything. A symptom of overpopulation is destruction of habitat and look at what we're doing. Please answer.

Destruction of habitat is a totally different conversation.

[samsara15]

I lean towards Nathan. I believe our species will be extinct eventually. There is also the factor of the possible evolution of a disease resistant to all antbiotics. Also, our ability to totally control our environment has definite limits., as does human ability to control itself. Even should we stablize our population, we would eventually use up all the resources. We can, however, with wise usage of our resources, and a stable population, greatly extend the lifetime of our species, but we need action soon. Considering the hightly negative attitude of many people in the US to the UN and the possibility of world government, that seems unlikely.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: samsara15 I lean towards Nathan. I believe our species will be extinct eventually.

And you're basing this on what....?

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: samsara15 I lean towards Nathan. I believe our species will be extinct eventually. And you're basing this on what....?

Yeah, really.

I'd also like to know what differentiates a "stable" and "unstable" population. As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with our reproduction rate, so you're obviously using some unknown criteria here.