The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

reply to post by soficrow


Almost sounds like Survival of the Fittest when you take away all the emotional baggage trying to equate "genetics" with "Nazi eugenics" doesn't it?

[edit on 22/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Seems like no one noticed, but yesterday, we ran out of this years food supply.

What am I talking about? You check your kitchen, the wonder-bread, the peanut butter jar, the canned sardines and well your whole food supply is still there.

I'm talking real life and science (I know, that's not the OP's field of expertise), I'm talking world consumption of renewable food resources, that is water, plant and animal resources transformed into food.

The Global Footrpint Network is an independent organization mapping our global sustainability - or rather lack of sustainability - in co-operation with WWF International.

www.footprintnetwork.org...

Based on the statistics complied by GFN and evaluated by the WWF, yesterday the 21st of August, we the global population used up the last of this year's renewable food resources.

What's left for us to consume for the remaining 4 1/2 months of the year are non-renewable food sources (that is, the stock needed to re-create next year's water, plant and animal resources).

It is therefore blatantly evident that we - as a global entity, in the situation that we have created for ourselves - are overconsuming this planet's resources.

Because we are too numerous and too voracious.

wwf.panda.org.../Earths-Overdraft-Notice-On-August-21st-we-exceed-natures-budget

Eat that!

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Heliocentric]

Originally posted by Heliocentric
It is therefore blatantly evident that we - as a global entity, in the situation that we have created for ourselves - are overconsuming this planet's resources.

Yes, you are right

Nothing to do with population and EVERYTHING to do with over-consumption.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces approximately 17 percent more calories per person today than it did some 30 or so years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,700 kilo-calories (kcal) per person per day.

Governmental mismanagement and mass-overconsumption are to blame. This is the result of despotism, corruption, economic ignorance, short-sighted greed and the inhumanity of man unto man - it is not a matter of counting heads.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Yes, you are right

Nothing to do with population and EVERYTHING to do with over-consumption.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces approximately 17 percent more calories per person today than it did some 30 or so years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,700 kilo-calories (kcal) per person per day.

Governmental mismanagement and mass-overconsumption are to blame. This is the result of despotism, corruption, economic ignorance, short-sighted greed and the inhumanity of man unto man - it is not a matter of counting heads.

I would say everything to do with over-population AND over-consumption.

The one factor - and it's perhaps the most important one - you don't take into account is the Human Enterprise Factor.

Imagine a poor Brazilian farmer living right at the edge of the Amazonian rain forest.

He will - as all others - slash and burn a piece of jungle into farmland, just enough to feed his family.

Will it stop there? Of course not. Once he has everything his family needs, he will not 'resource-manage' his plot in order to protect the planet's biosphere.

He will slash and burn another piece of jungle and add it to his farmland, because with an increase in harvest there will be a surplus that can be used to build a bigger, better house, perhaps even by a tractor, etc. Once he has that, what is supposed to stop him from expanding further and create an even better life for himself?

You probably say rules and regulations, a well-organized society that resource-manage its population in relation to it's renewable and non-renewable recourses.

Which is an idyllic, utopian and naive idea, unless you refer to a few scant tribes of deep forest indians, desert or polar region nomads (although all research made on these people show that once they get their hands on technology that permits them to better exploit their environment, they do it, and thereby disrupt the balance between resources and human enterprise).

In a world which is now more or less conscient of the unbalance in consumption/resources it has created, what have we done so far?

The Kyoto protocol was a big joke, the Copenhagen summit was a parody of the big joke. Or do you consider that baby steps to a new utopian world order?

We're no closer to global resource-management than we are to a United Nations functioning in the way it was intended. But we are very close to a chronic demographic escalation and thereby worsening a situation that we've already lost control of.

Strangely, the regions of the world where resource management is more performant is also where population increase is under control...

But it does not mean that these regions or countries are 'in balance' with the biosphere, not at all. When rules and regulations are set up and a majority of the population have come to respect them, people will still find ways around the laws, find new ways and new types of resources to exploit.

Human enterprise imposes that you always try to improve your living conditions, because once you got the car you thought you needed, you want a second car, and once you've got a second car you want a yacht, etc.

If you imagine a planet with 13 billion individuals all accepting pre-fixed living standards set by a global government, then you're back in la-la utopian land.

There is one efficient way around all these problems though; radically reduce the human world population, to a point where that society is big enough to sustain itself and even develop, but not big enough to over-consume renewable resources. Then let than population (over) exploit the planet in the same irresponsible way we do, that might work.

Imagine a species more voracious than humans, let's say a race of gluttonous beings. If only a hundred of those beings existed and would consume more resources than the planet can renew, without having the organization and logistics to increase production of renewable resources, then it means that those hundred individuals represent an over-population.

If their population could be brought down to ten, they can continue to be themselves, without being able to push the planet out of synch.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Nothing to do with population and EVERYTHING to do with over-consumption.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces approximately 17 percent more calories per person today than it did some 30 or so years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,700 kilo-calories (kcal) per person per day.

Governmental mismanagement and mass-overconsumption are to blame. This is the result of despotism, corruption, economic ignorance, short-sighted greed and the inhumanity of man unto man - it is not a matter of counting heads.

Have you taken into account the number of people that are dependent on others to get food and supplies to them? The most obvious one being newly born infants. Is it the Government's fault that people with 3 kids decide to have another 5 more when they realistically cannot afford to do so?

Did anybody even think about vertical farming or did the obvious sollution just get thrown away like usually.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by soficrow

 

Almost sounds like Survival of the Fittest when you take away all the emotional baggage trying to equate "genetics" with "Nazi eugenics" doesn't it?

imho - It's Survival of the Most Flexible, Mutable and Adaptable.

Forget "fittest" - implies stasis.

reply to post by CHA0S


How old are you? I have 4 children, are they not entitled to life? All of you are crazy and ignorant. The problem with the world, or lets keep it local, the US, is people like you. Who do you think you are? Prove that the earth or the US is over populated. Please I really want to see you evidence. If there is a shortage of resources it ALWAYS is because of either a natural occurrence (weather or insects and wild life) or a government that is so corrupt they are no longer human. I seriously think you need medication or better yet how about just an education that didn't come from a Hollywood film.
I have a way better idea for population control, instead of killing off the babies, the elderly who have spent their lives working and taking care of us and our parents, the sick and infirm who just got dealt a bum deal, or the people doing the best they can under an oppressive government that takes what the rest of the world offers and instead of taking care of their people get rich, how about we start with the real leaches on society. The young strong people who instead of taking care of themselves cry about the selfish people who work not only to take take care of themselves and their family but also have to support the losers of the world, or the US. I mean it is a win/win. Those people won't be around when hey are old to suck off the system and low and behold they won't breed either saving the life of an innocent who just might grow up and be grateful for the LIFE they were allowed to live.

reply to post by tspark


Why is it that people must be mocked and ridiculed when they speak the obvious? Who exactly do you think you are to make judgements that young strong people are "leeches"?

reply to post by Dark Ghost


I'm just saying that if people want to solve the nonexistent population crisis it would be better to start with the 18-45 year old prime of the lifers that won't work, mooch from family, friends, and strangers. There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care.

Who am I? I am a mother of 4 beautiful children that does not believe in population control I was making a point. As the prochoicers say "stay out of my womb" tacky but succinct. I am one of those strong young people myself. But I'm not leaching the system....

[edit on 22-8-2010 by tspark]

Originally posted by tspark
I'm just saying that if people want to solve the nonexistent population crisis it would be better to start with the 18-45 year old prime of the lifers that won't work, mooch from family, friends, and strangers. There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia
Non-existent? The planet in which we live has limited resources! Do you realise that increasing the human population size places strain and danger on animals and their habitats and nature as a whole? We already do enough harm to Nature without adding to a population that already cannot be properly sustained.

[edit on 22/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Edit: double post.

[edit on 22/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

In reading this thread I came to such a conclusion. It is not that overpopulation is a problem on this earth, it is the fact that we are overpopulated by idiots. Idiots who would rather sustain disease, poverty, war, hunger etc... for ego gratifying personal ends rather than use the advances in technology and knowledge of earth and its surrounds to perhaps make this place a better place to house 6 billion plus... the truth is agendas are what make us weak, we tend to follow the leader, who is packed with agenda, instead of following our survival instinct and our common sense. Perhaps we are a weak species who have no place in this 3rd dimensional existence, perhaps not, I guess we will have to use what we have left and prove to the rest of the universe that we are worthy of sticking around, instead of being parasitic as we are becoming. Truth be told, if we don't learn soon, we are all better off deleted from the system.

reply to post by tspark


A lot of people have been thrown out of jobs in the past few years. A lot of these prime-of-lifers are not out of work voluntarily.

Frankly I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

reply to post by tspark

There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care.

There is one thing that is more pathetic. A grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care, and then having plenty of children..

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by tspark

 

There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care.

There is one thing that is more pathetic. A grown man or woman crying for handouts, food stamps, and "free" health care, and then having plenty of children..

So you think it's a good thing, as the OP shows, that the "Overpopulation Myth" is -in reality- a human fertility crisis?

Or are you one of those eugenicists who thinks the wrong people are able to breed? ...That the greatest human tragedy is the fact that the ruling class is almost extinct due to infertility?

reply to post by soficrow

So you think it's a good thing, as the OP shows, that the "Overpopulation Myth" is -in reality- a human fertility crisis?

It is a good thing that fertility rates in developing countries are falling, I believe it will increase their living standard significantly. It becomes a problem only when they fall too low, below the replacement rate. This is what is happening in many developed countries, and it is a big problem, indeed. As I said earlier, we have both overpopulation and an underpopulation crisis, depending on region, social status etc.

Or are you one of those eugenicists who thinks the wrong people are able to breed?

Yes, I am. As a rule of thumb, people who cannot take care even of themselves in the first place should not breed.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Maslo]

An interesting, easy-to-digest article on overpopulation:

Population: The Multiplier of Everything Else

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I just looked through it quickly but it seems to advocate population control in the third world. There's suffering there or the risk of suffering from a lack of resources, and that is where population growth is highest. In the first world there is generally zero growth or negative growth.

Let's make the discussion more specific, because proposed actions would be different. Are we trying to limit population everywhere, or just in the poor countries, and/or the countries with fast population growth? The latter two groups have a lot of overlap but I'm sure there are differences as well.

Personally I think that it's unfair to ask the first world to have population shrinkage while the third world has a lot of areas with vast population growth, then force unpopular immigration policies in those first world countries where part of that new population from the third world immigrates and changes the societies in the former first world countries.

These issues are a part of any practical solution, and we should not be afraid to include them in the conversation.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

 

So you think it's a good thing, as the OP shows, that the "Overpopulation Myth" is -in reality- a human fertility crisis?

It is a good thing that fertility rates in developing countries are falling, I believe it will increase their living standard significantly. ...As I said earlier, we have both overpopulation and an underpopulation crisis, depending on region, social status etc.

If the "developed / civilized" world's corporations stopped plundering "developing" countries resources, and contaminating their fresh water supplies, that too would "increase their living standard significantly."

Or are you one of those eugenicists who thinks the wrong people are able to breed?

Yes, I am. As a rule of thumb, people who cannot take care even of themselves in the first place should not breed.

The ruling classes started becoming infertile in the 17-1800's - around the time eugenics was "developed" as a "science." The topic of fertility was much discussed in eugenics meetings, often with the lament that "the poor breed like rabbits."

Interesting that the "poor" remain genetically vigorous while the ruling classes have become practically infertile.

One explanation:

* The greedy, ruthless, self-gratifying, self-congratulatory and arrogant behaviors that allow the ruling classes to rule are NOT beneficial to long term survival of the species - only short-term individual survival, while

* The cooperative behaviors of the poor ensure the long term survival of the "class" - and species.

Conclusion:

Mother nature knows what she's doing.




...unfortunately, it appears that the ruling class' actions and interventions now are threatening poor peoples' ability to procreate too, not just their own, and consequently, may threaten our entire species' survival.