Many people credit Thomas Malthus with pioneering the overpopulation-myth when he
published his series of essays entitled 'An Essay on the Principle of Population' beginning in 1798. In summary:
Malthus also hinted at the possibility of selective breeding when he wrote:
"It does not... by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might
take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt; but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps longevity
are in a degree transmissible... As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy,
it is not probable that an attention to breed should ever become general".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter IX, p72
This idea would later be expanded on by Francis Galton (half cousin of Charles Darwin) who
“believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by
provision of monetary incentives.” He would name this idea 'eugenics' – being the proud inventor of this term.
However, Malthus plagiarised many of his ideas from Giammaria Ortes, a defrocked Camaldolese monk who first wrote of population control on 1790.
Ortes' magic number for maximum human population? 3 billion. Anything more than this and the world would collapse into itself and be destroyed.
Obviously this is all a load of rubbish as now the human population stands at roughly 6.5 billion, more than double what Ortes and Malthus had given
as their unalterable upper limit for the world's human population.
Misinformation, disinformation and blatant propaganda has deluded the vast majority of people into believing that not only is the world overpopulated
but this overpopulation is the cause of all economic and environmental problems we face. Example:
”I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
- Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate
Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.
Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which newborn girls would have an average of exactly one daughter over their lifetimes. In
more familiar terms, women have just enough babies to replace themselves. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most
industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken
globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. -
For the world as a whole, the number of children born per woman decreased from 5.02 to 2.65 between 1950 and 2005. A breakdown by continent is
Europe 2.66 to 1.41
North America 3.47 to 1.99
Oceania 3.87 to 2.30
Central America 6.38 to 2.66
South America 5.75 to 2.49
Asia (excluding Middle East) 5.85 to 2.43
Middle East & North Africa 6.99 to 3.37
Sub-Saharan Africa 6.7 to 5.53
The fact is; fertility rates have decreased dramatically in almost all countries around the globe. Why this might be I shall leave to your
imaginations. Flouride in the water? Drugs and vaccines? High abortion rates (For instance Russia who had an abortion rate near 70 percent. In just
over a decade, the country shrunk by 12 million, prompting the United Nations to predict that by 2050, Russia’s population would further dwindle to
one-fifth of what it is now.) Even economic reasons (eg. “We cant afford children right now”).
All of the following graphs and statistics come from the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division's 2004 report 'World
Population to 2300' - Pdf Document
As you can see their highest estimate for population growth by 2050 is approximately 10 billion, with the lowest projection being 7.4 billion.
Personally I believe their medium projection of approximately 9 billion is the most accurate.
However, as the following graph shows population growth is in decline...
So how can these two graphs both be correct? How can population still be increasing?
Imagine a car in neutral rolling down a hill. Once it reaches the bottom it will still travel a certain distance because of momentum. This is how
population works, in essence, we will not feel the effect of this fertility decline for decades when, seemingly out of nowhere, populations will
And the UN expects fertility rates to continually fall for the next 40 years...
Taking all of the above into consideration; which of the following projections for world population in 2300 do you think is most likely?
My money is on a figure closer to 2.3 billion.
Overpopulation? What overpopulation?
Also, consider the following...
There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from less than
1 to 1000 billion (1 trillion). Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion (with unspecified standard errors),
with a median of about 10 billion. - en.wikipedia.org...
So even if the UN's medium projection of 9 billion is correct it would still be below the median proposed capacity of 10 billion.
If I haven't convinced you that overpopulation is a myth I hope that, at the very least, I have opened your mind to the possibility that it is being
greatly exaggerated by those in positions of power to further their agendas.
What...so this is just plain wrong? There have been like 20 people born in the time it took me
to make this post...I look around the world...and I see cities so polluted you can't see the horizon, I see the vast majority is starving and/or
homeless...why don't you look up the numbers on that...there are already too many people on this planet IMO...we need to stop where we are now...I
wouldn't say we are currently overpopulated to the degree where we need to take aggressive action, but we can't afford to ignore the problem and act
like it doesn't exist or wont manifest into a problem...
It makes one feel warm and cozy inside to feel like they are taking action against the plight of this planet which is us.
Overpopulation give me a break. Lets make more jobs by developing undeveloped land and spread the hell out. Someone is bound to crap themselves at
that idea though.
What about mother earth?? Yeah about that, Earth has a way of dealing with the slag of society, don't worry about it.
Plenty of food, plenty of water, plenty of air, plenty of resources. Trying to fix the alleged problem is like a 5 year old trying to debate politics
it is ridiculous.
Overpopulation give me a break. Lets make more jobs by developing undeveloped land and spread the hell out.
It's your type of thinking that makes me think human kind truly is some kind of virus..."spread and multiple"...go ahead and plumage and
destroy the Earth...I couldn't care less anymore, dirty humans can live on a dirty planet, it suites them.
Did you know part of the (lets jack up mother nature) mentality comes from ignorance on the issue. Where I live right now people throw out trash in
the middle of the street because no one ever taught them that it may be reprehensible to their future.
Every time I see it I go nuts, because I was taught how to dispose properly.
If you were to take these fowl creatures and teach them the ways of Captain Planet they may learn to pollute less and return more. Ever think of
Impressive statistics but manipulated to produce a wrong answer - the overpopulation of the planet is the most serious problem mankind faces, and for
the most part, he is totally ignorant of it.
I am in agreement with the poster who questioned the sanity of people who deny reality about population. Too many people is dangerous and it will
have consequences far beyond us just talking about it. This world and its resources can support about 3 billion people easily; it can not sustain
itself approaching 8 billion people.
The next few years will tell the truth about what happens to the teeming masses when they have to cope with adversities they created by over-breeding
to the point of insanity. It is so sad to see no leadership stepping forward to help us come to terms with this looming disaster.
While you posted a well-researched article which made a compelling argument that world-population will soon be decreasing by a billion or so in the
next few years, I have to disagree that this does not mean the world is not overpopulated.
Only when the entire world is able to sustain its population, without destroying anymore natural forests and wildlife ... without using socialism,
communism or social grants and donations for countries unable to feed their populations - then I will agree that the world is not overpopulated.
The problem is not over population, it is the concentration of large numbers in areas that can't handle them. If we could move a lot of people to
sustainable areas they could probably sustain themselves (unless they are to old or sick).
I agree, it is the hoarding and disproportionate use of resources that is the problem....not the population size. We already have the technology to
help ease that as well, sadly the elites of the world have different plans. If we used technology available to use already(never mind future
technology) and spread resources equally and used it more efficiently(in conjunction with technology of course), the earths population could easily
triple in size and we would still be fine. I don't see a problem with this, i can't stand the depopulation fanatics though if im being honest, annoy
the hell out of me. Their arguments are baseless imo, they have simply fallen for propaganda.
Well Chaos I apologize if I came off sounding as though I were implying that you planned to allow the deaths of people, Sincerely.
I suspect that if a child regulations policy were somehow globally enforced it would undoubtedly lead to a more derogatory form of control. it is all
ways a slippery slope as history has shown. I guess that's where my aggravation comes from on the issue. It's not directed toward you so let me
apologize to you yet again for what may have seemed like cutting remarks.
I just don't see how it can be improved. unless you are living in a mud hut Not driving a vehicle and not consuming anything massed produced, then
according to someone you are that virus of which you speak. Look I'm all for wearing Hemp clothing and singing around the camp fire but the fact is
Money does by almost everything. Including opinions, and those who have the money have the power.
In the end the only people to suffer are those virus types at the bottom of the totem pole. That sadly to say Chaos is you and me both. That is where
my concern lies in talk about overpopulation. That some one with money will get a "good" idea and then we are all screwed.
Anyway I have to go do some cardio. Once again no hard feelings I see where your coming from I really do.
But evening out the population numbers over the land more would only mean more development land is needed, and more areas are becoming tainted by our
malicious presence. Untainted areas of nature are absolutely thriving, some human infected areas look dead and diseased. You are thinking resource
wise, and resources/wealth aren't the problem, it's the distribution of those assets.
Originally posted by snowen20
unless you are living in a mud hut Not driving a vehicle and not consuming anything massed produced, then according to someone you are that virus of
which you speak.
No...the people of which I speak promote ideas like this:
Lets make more jobs by developing undeveloped land and spread the hell out.
When is enough enough...when can you just be happy with what you have and what the calm majestic beauty of nature has to offer you? No...it's better
to have man-made things in their place...they are more useful...
What's that poem..."Only when we have..."...yeah, you know the one...I can't be bothered finding...
Take 50 chickens and let them run free range and take another 50 chickens and stack them on top of each other in some industrial chicken high rise.
Take a field full of chicken cages...each cage packed full of chickens, but the actual field still has a lot of open space for all the other
creatures...now each chicken cage is suddenly opened...suddenly we have a field full of chickens that impact everything in the field to a far greater
The logistics behind getting resources to a whole array of people in a whole array of new locations would also be expensive...communications and
transport are easier when people are grouped together, things also get done quicker and cheaper...if everyone were to spread out and try to live off
the land it just wouldn't work, we'd have to reverse our advancement and go back to a more primitive way of life...which obviously wont be
acceptable to many people who think as an intelligent and self aware species our destiny is to advance and progress technologically and
Ok, Let me start over with you Chaos because outside forces in my immediate surroundings have leaked onto this thread, consequently making me come off
as a jackass.
Seriously though, do you have any suggestions that might at the very least begin to improve the issue? I would like to know because honestly all i
have ever heard from people is death warrants.
But I'm all for educating people in how to live and survive in a world whereby they are less dependent on technologies that damage the planet.
But like i said I personally feel it is an education issue and that not enough emphasis is placed on such topics. I don't mean a green agenda kind of
thing but a real way of life. Kind of the same way a person who has eaten junk food all their life decides to change their health, 10 years later they
are a competing bodybuilder. It was a life change by education and hard work.
When I suggested spreading out I certainly meant doing so in a controllable fashion. Something where those who are educated can live and work in the
environment without destroying it.
look around the word...and I see cities so polluted you can't see the horizon, I see the vast majority is starving and/or homeless
Perhaps the issues aren't quantity but quality.
Populations of consumers have done the majority of the damage.
I agree with the OP, It's a myth. Mere numbers are not to blame, it is the quality of US, the human species, and our inability to share, love and
care for each other, it's our greed and sense of entitlement to have more then our neighbour.
Perhaps if we chnaged the quality of our societies, we could change what is looking inevitably to be the fate of our civilization, an end, due to over
consumption, greed and selfishness.
I suspect that we probaly wouldn't be the first civilization to pass into obscurity.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.