Why Aren't We Talking About OVERPOPULATION??

I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of almost all of the world's ills is due to overpopulation. There would be less hungry people, less poverty, less violence (from too many rats in the cage so to speak), less anthropogenic global warming, less impact on the environment and less crime.
The list goes on and on, but I will stop there because the question I want to ask on this thread is:

Why aren't we addressing the overpopulation problem? We are beyond Earth's capability of supporting us, there is more pollution from more people, and lots of hungry people. The prehistoric ancients practiced various types of birth control, why can't we? They recognized that too many people meants everyone starves. Why can't we see that? Why are there articles lamenting the lowered birth rates in France and Italy?
I'd like to know what everyone's thoughts are on this - why aren't we talking about overpopulation?

The earth is about to take care of 'overpopulation' itself. IMHO
TEOTWAWKI

Oh .. and some would say that the earth isn't overpopulated. It's just that the populations are not spread correctly. (I disagree)

Forest Lady, a lot of people fear this topic because they believe the powers that be are planning to spread disease and such to rid the world of a large percentage of the population.

Originally posted by forestlady
I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of almost all of the world's ills is due to overpopulation.

Incorrect.

Originally posted by forestlady
There would be less hungry people, less poverty, less violence (from too many rats in the cage so to speak), less anthropogenic global warming, less impact on the environment and less crime.
The list goes on and on, but I will stop there because the question I want to ask on this thread is:

Well...yes and no. Yes, too many people is bad, but these people are consumers of an economy, workers of businesses... If some places have less people, there wouldn't be enough workers to get things done efficiently. You have to look at it as a broad thing.

But yes, when you have more people than can be sustained, things go bad. Usually this means a drop in population due to higher rates of disease and starvation.

Originally posted by forestlady
We are beyond Earth's capability of supporting us, there is more pollution from more people, and lots of hungry people.

Actually we're not beyond Earth's capability of supporting us. We're pretty far from the limit now, obviously. As we get closer, more people will die. If we're beyond it, obviously more people will die than are born. It's a self-regulating system as it is with animals.

Originally posted by forestlady
The prehistoric ancients practiced various types of birth control, why can't we? They recognized that too many people meants everyone starves.

They're called... "condoms."

Originally posted by forestlady
Why can't we see that? Why are there articles lamenting the lowered birth rates in France and Italy?

Because underpopulation is a problem too. As I said, if there aren't enough people to work, businesses fail.

Originally posted by forestlady
Why aren't we addressing the overpopulation problem?

Okay, how should we?

I think that the reason no one really talks about how to stop overpopulation is because of the measures that would have to be taken to stop overpopulating.. For instance:

What do we do about the millions already alive? Do we kill off some? If we do, who and what decides which lives are ended and which can continue? Who decides who gets to decide who lives and dies?

If we just stop letting people produce so many babies, or any at all for awhile for that matter, who decides that? Who or what decides who can have children and how many they can have? How would we decide who gets to pass their genes on to the next generation? Only the smartest people? The most creative? The fastest? The strongest? How would we decide which genes were the best ones to be passed on?

Anyway, I agree that we have some major overpopulation going on I just don't see any way for us to do anything about it that wouldn't involve the government getting a little too involved in everyone's sex lives than they should be. I think that Mother Nature is going to wipe quite a few of us out before too long anyway though through floods, storms, food shortages, etc. Something will happen, it's just a matter of time I think.

No. We let it regulate itself. Or instigate war.

Thank you for this topic. It's a good one.

I believe we are overpopulated. And I agree with everything in your post, forestlady.

One problem (as I see it) is that people have this idea that it's imperative to have children. For some reason that I don't understand, it's pretty important to most people to have children to carry on their name or something. The more people we have, the more people we have breeding.

We have birth control, but most people think they NEED to have at least one child. I don't understand it myself. I wouldn't bring a child into this world.

Another issue is that people think living forever (or as close to it as possible) should be some kind of a goal. The law (in the US) says that if you don't want to live anymore, too bad. You have to hang in there for as long as modern medicine can keep you alive or until you "die naturally". Allowing people to gracefully exit is not an option, unfortunately.

As far as how we should address the problem, I think physician-assisted suicide should be an option for any adult of sound mind. I also think that birth control shoud be much more widely available than it is. I would never want the law to tell a person they can't have a child, but there's got to be some way to stop encouraging people to have kids, and to make free birth control available, especially to 3rd world countries.

There was a thread about a "breeding license". There were some good ideas in there.

And instead of funding wars, we should be funding our future. We should be thinking further out than 5 years... :shk:

Forestlady, what evidence have you used to come to your conclusion that the global is overpopulated?

I think we are getting close to over population. I know we need to think of the globe as a single entity but there are parts of the globe that seems over populated.

And yes we should be discussing this but who makes the decisions. That I think is the real question. Who decides?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Forestlady, what evidence have you used to come to your conclusion that the global is overpopulated?

I think we are getting close to over population. I know we need to think of the globe as a single entity but there are parts of the globe that seems over populated.

And yes we should be discussing this but who makes the decisions. That I think is the real question. Who decides?

Sure, here's a few:
1-Pres. Jimmy Carter was concerned about overpopulation and had a report done, called "Global Population 2000". It's an interesting read and you can Google it.

2 - John Robbins' book " Diet for a new America". His research is impeccable and covers the topic quite well, and what we can do about it.

3 - Google "overpopulation" and you'll get tons of informative hits there.

4 - Go to www.overpopulation.org and you'll find tons of info there, numerous articles, etc.

5 - A book by Marvin Harris "Cannibals and Kings" - all about ancient birth control practices.

6 - Google "overpopulation problems" - even more info there.

If you still need more, I will happily provide them.

This is one of my favorite topics; I don't think overpopulation is usually a problem and I certainly don't think it's a problem right now.

Here's my most concise statement on the problems with a theory of overpopulation:

Elrich's "The Population Bomb" is the preeminent book among those who believe that overpopulation exists. Elrich's theories have been completely destroyed by Julian Lincoln Simon.

And here's how.

"Critics have compared Ehrlich to Thomas Malthus for his multiple predictions of famine and economic catastrophe. The leading critic of Ehrlich was Julian Lincoln Simon, a libertarian theorist and the author of the book The Ultimate Resource, a book which argues a larger population is a benefit, not a cost. To test their two contrasting views on resources, in 1980, Ehrlich and Simon entered into a wager over how the price of metals would move during the 1980s. Ehrlich predicted that the price would increase as metals became more scarce in the Earth's crust, while Simon insisted the price of metals had fallen throughout human history and would continue to do so. Ehrlich lost the bet. Indeed such was the decline in the price of the five metals Ehrlich selected, Simon would have won even without taking inflation into account."

en.wikipedia.org...

And what does Mr. Simon say about the future of the human race?

"We have in our hands now—actually in our libraries—the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years. Most amazing is that most of this specific body of knowledge was developed within just the past two centuries or so, though it rests, of course, on basic knowledge that had accumulated for millennia. Indeed, the last necessary additions to this body of technology—nuclear fission and space travel—occurred decades ago."

en.wikipedia.org...

He's not alone in his belief that overpopulation is not an issue, consider that most estimate the Earth's "carrying capacity" to be between 15-20 billion, whereas Earth's population will probably plateau out at roughly 9 billion by 2300.

fubini.swarthmore.edu...
www.eroei.com...

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by forestlady
I have come to the conclusion that the root cause of almost all of the world's ills is due to overpopulation.

Incorrect.

Oh, ye of little imagination, could you at least state WHY you think I'm incorrect? Ya know, some links, an opinion or something? Don't just stand up in class and point the giant finger at me and pronounce me "INCORRECT" , OK? Gimme something to work with.

Forest Lady, here is a good example of why people do not talk about overpopulation:

One of the most difficult concepts for Americans to accept is that there are human beings dedicated to coercive population control and genocide. Many readers will acknowledge that our government is helping to finance the Red Chinese program of forced abortion, forced sterilization, infanticide, and control of the numbers of live births. Most readers will accept the fact that our nation is helping to finance the United Nations' world-wide "family planning program," a form of population control. Most rational men and women, however, find it impossible to believe that such programs are really part of a "master plan" to kill off large segments of the world's population.
I shall have to admit that I studied the politics of AIDS (HIV disease) for over a decade before I finally came to a horrifying conclusion. The real motivation behind efforts to block utilization of standard public health measures to control further spread of the HIV epidemic was "population control." That was not an easy concept for me to acknowledge, despite the fact that I had long recognized that the twentieth century has been the bloodiest hundred-year period in all recorded human history.

Population Control

Such possibilities, and according to many, plausibilities are scarier than hell. Most people don't talk about the population problem because they don't want it to be come an open topic to be discussed. Most of them fear that all politicians will jump on the "We've got to do something about over-population" bandwagon. Fear is the reason people don't discuss it. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There was a thread about a "breeding license". There were some good ideas in there.

I will not tolerate any government that regulates reproduction, as China does. It's a disgusting, fascist idea. If the United States does anything of the sort, I will fight in ANY way possible.

Personally I don't believe this planet is overpopulated. I base my opinion as someone who has been an expat for 17 years and travelled a great deal of this planet. It's just that people seem to migrate to the cities - where the work is.

Travel outside the major cities and you there is an abundance of land and you may not see another face. I think you are thinking about The United States or possibly Western countries when you talk of overpopulation.

If there were more 'cottage industries' and people relocated back to the countryside, this would ease the burdon. Bascially we are seeing the reverse of trends that started with Industrialisation. People need to move back to the countryside and take a more active role in the production of the things that they need and consume.

It is disinformation to think that there are too many 'useless eaters'. Don't buy into this idea.

There are now 5.8 billion human beings on the planet, and according to the United Nations, the population of earth is expected to grow to around 7.9 billion by 2050. [For the most up-to-date numbers, www.zpg.org] In a world that currently wrestles with such serious problems as global warming, the thinning of the ozone layer, increasing crime rates, toxic chemicals in our food, and starvation in developing nations, each of which is at least partially due to growing world population, it's hard to imagine anyone opposing restraints on population controls

How many?

While some may argue that population control is draconian, I think it's important for people to realize that one of two things have to happen

1. We implement population control

2. We find another planet to start populating in conjunction with the earth.

Fact is, we are already hard pressed to sustain the life we have on earth now. What's it going to be like in another 50-100 years?

JohnMike, increasingly, machines are doing more and more of the work. Ever tried to get a human to answer the phone at any agency or company? It's all automated. Factories are using machines to make other machines, like in car factories.
So, no, we don't need all that many people to run the businesses and those businesses wouldn't need to be so large to accomodate the giant population.

Every figure I've heard about reaching overpopulation says 6 billion, and we're almost at 7 billion. Do you have any sources to tell me otherwise?

Lastly, I'm talking prehistoric people, like cavemen. They had a type of condom but it didn't work very well. They used various methods, one of which was for the woman to try to cause herself to miscarry either thru using herbs or beating on her stomach. Sometimes, several people would get together and jump on the woman's stomach to cause her to abort. I know all these sound barbaric and I'm certainly not advocating them, but I am saying, if the ancients knew about overpopulation and that there wouldn't be enough food for the tribe to eat if there were too many people, why don't we know and understand this? Why aren't we seeing it?

[edit on 9/4/07 by forestlady]

[edit on 9/4/07 by forestlady]

Originally posted by deessell
Personally I don't believe this planet is overpopulated. I base my opinion as someone who has been an expat for 17 years and travelled a great deal of this planet. It's just that people seem to migrate to the cities - where the work is.

Travel outside the major cities and you there is an abundance of land and you may not see another face. I think you are thinking about The United States or possibly Western countries when you talk of overpopulation.

If there were more 'cottage industries' and people relocated back to the countryside, this would ease the burdon. Bascially we are seeing the reverse of trends that started with Industrialisation. People need to move back to the countryside and take a more active role in the production of the things that they need and consume.

It is disinformation to think that there are too many 'useless eaters'. Don't buy into this idea.

Well, as someone who has spent almost 40 years traveling the globe, I can see a major difference in population and most noticeablly, it is the rural communities that have people really flooding into them. I live in the Appalachian mountains and this small town has suddenly become the place to be, it's rapidly filling up. No more 60 acre landspreads, those are all being split into 5 acre plots and being sold, there's just not enough land for people any more. And I don't subscribe to the "useless eaters" idea, either, I'm talking overpopulation, not the worth of human beings.
Anyway, that's my opinion.

Actually, they already are reducing the population. They're just covering it up.


Prescription drug deaths skyrocket 68 percent over five years as Americans swallow more pills

(NewsTarget) Poisoning from prescription drugs has risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers found that deaths from prescription drugs rose from 4.4 per 100,000 people in 1999 to 7.1 per 100,000 in 2004.

This increase represents a jump from 11,000 people to almost 20,000 in the span of five years. Among the 20,000 that died, more than 8,500 – double the number from 1999 -- were from "other and unspecified drugs."

Source: www.newstarget.com...


Mod Edit: Reduced External Quote


[edit on 9-4-2007 by chissler]

Is there ever someone who calculated how many people the earth can support, if resources were properly spread?

Is it 10, 20, 30 or 50 billions?

I think, there will came a point, were energy (fossil fuel which is used to grow crop), light energy to grow food, seafood, land to grow food, etc. will reach a maximum.

I guess, we are getting there, fast.

Originally posted by deessell
Travel outside the major cities and you there is an abundance of land and you may not see another face. I think you are thinking about The United States or possibly Western countries when you talk of overpopulation.

If there were more 'cottage industries' and people relocated back to the countryside, this would ease the burdon. Bascially we are seeing the reverse of trends that started with Industrialisation. People need to move back to the countryside and take a more active role in the production of the things that they need and consume.

Personally I don't see overpopulation as something that can be decided by where people live, but by how many people are living. Sure there's all kinds of land for people to live on, but the some is used for growing food (can't take over that land for housing or more people starve), some is left for the animals to live on (and we eat those too, not all of us but enough that we can't just kill them off by taking away the places they live to make room for our growing populations and if we do more people starve), and some of that land is either so cold or so hot that even the animals don't really want to live there (granted we won't have more people starve if we populate those areas, but then we have to worry about the number of people that will either freeze to death from the cold or die from the heat.. Of course that would sorta solve the problem on it's own though wouldn't it. ). Overpopulation is not a problem limited to the US or the Western countries. Africa is neither in the US nor the West and yet they have overpopulation. Same goes for China, Europe, etc. ad infinitum.

People moving to the country won't decrease the "burden" unless by burden you mean traffic and smog concentration in cities. The number of people and the number of resources available to those people will remain the same. The people will just have to drive farther to get to work, will use more gas and oil in doing so, and will destroy the pieces of earth that have currently been spared from being bulldozed to make way for that super-mall and 5000 car parking lot.

With all the thousands of people who are starving in this world, that anyone can deny that we have even a small overpopulation problem is beyond me.