World Overpopulation Myth Debunked

Originally posted by network dude
I'm gonna get a house boat bitches! You can have your land! I'll get me a parrot and take to the seas! Arg!

And what masonic fraternity will ye join?Templar or East Indian Tea Company.Is there a difference?Think nay ya bastard arrhh

Originally posted by boncho

Strange how we produce so much of something we don't need.

Let's not confuse usage with need. We have replacements, but the coal industry has become an establishment that is extremely profitable and wields a lot of political power.

Well that doesn't do much until it's feasible does it? We've been searching for alternatives to coal for more than a generation.

Technological innovation is exponential, not linear. It builds on itself. Halfway through the human genome project only 1% of the genome was mapped. Yet, it ended up finishing AHEAD of schedule.

This link offered earlier by another user outlines a nanotech solution that is achievable within the next decade, or two max: spectrum.ieee.org...

That is, assuming its achievement is in step with the projections of molecular manufacturing as a whole. "...almost certainly within 20 years, and perhaps in less than a decade." (www.crnano.org...)

Murder and torture are as old as mankind. Ever since man first invented the club he probably used it to kill another caveman.

skeptoid.com...

Perhaps you should pick up a June 2012 edition of Discover Magazine. E.O. Wilson made similar claims, followed by a rebuttal article by John Horgan.

"The first solid evidence of lethal group violence among our ancestors dates back not millions, hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands of years, but only 13,000 years. The evidence consists of a mass grave found in the Nile Valley ... Even that site is an outlier. Virtually all other evidence for human warfare ... is 10,000 years old or less. In short, war is not a primorial biological "curse." It is a cultural innovation ... which culture can help us transcend."

The article also went into detail for analyzing all the scant records of violence in chimps and especially bonobos, which are as closely related to us as chimps and have still to this day never been seen engaging in "intertroop raids."

I know the issue is more centered on individual violence rather than war, but if you want to go that route, you better look at the psychological evidence. Citing still developing and less robust anthropological understandings is a weak cop out. An attempt to justify a personal hunch. Confirmation bias.

Originally posted by Numbers33four
Ok to put this to rest, working from my earlier post where I showed that there are 0.001972 sqaure kilometers of arable land per person...in a quick search I found that each person requires absolute minimum of .2 acres of arable land. This is for not much more than a vegetarian diet.

Where on earth did you get that figure from?

We feed 3 adults and 2 kids and have plenty left over with a veggie patch of around 30m2 so that's about 150 times less than your quote!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, I read that the average American back yard could have a small part of it given over to veggies and feed a family of five without the family losing any of their enjoyment of the major part of the yard which could remain as lawn and flowers etc.

Now if you mean land to grow clothes and other stuff we'd need a few more m2 for the hemp plants, but not much

ETA: it's also estimated we THROW AWAY or allow to spoil about 50% of the food already produced globally whilst 40,000 die each day of hunger. We have the resources and tech to transport the food too. The problem isn't resources, it's the will to actually look after each other!

By the way, if you start thinking vertical farming and vertical living, you can multiply all your various areas by a factor of 5,10,20,50 - you pick! Some people love to live in multistories, plants can grow hydroponically at 1000m on the 300th floor just as well as at ground level.

reply to post by Synergy23


It coincided with the desertification of Saharasia .

The land stopped providing an abundance of basic necessities. The culture shifted from Matriachal values, to Patriachal values. This infected the social and political realms, and now people believe this is the way we've always been.

Just look at unsocialized children. Society is the problem, not people. We need to unlearn what we think we know, and check our bias at the door.

I get angry when I read statements like "There isn't enough food for everyone" because it's just so much bollocks! Food is grossly mismanaged...As long as you have the cash, you are going to eat. The place where I'm contracted to work throws out enough food in one day to easily feed 50 people!!! That is just one facility out of many many thousands globally. Local laws forbid this establishment from donating to local food bank etc so off to the landfill it goes. In my view we manage food about as well as we manage money and wealth!

Strange how we produce so much of something we don't need.

I know that a lot of energy production today comes from coal, what I'm saying is that we don't need to be burning coal--
you know what, I feel more like an idiot explaining this to you than you do about being a bad reader.

Well that doesn't do much until it's feasible does it?

Good thing science works a lot better than lame opinions[1][2][3][4]

I know about electronic waste, but you are assuming that all electronics production results in the same amount of waste. Much of our hardware, particularly iPhones, are designed to last a short amount of time and be discarded. I fix phones, and getting someone to want their iPhone screen fixed is stupidly difficult, as most people are trained to just get a new one. You want to fix e-waste, get rid of capitalism. You can also use more efficient and safer additive manufacturing processes like electron beam melting, particularly for low-complexity electronics like appliances and infrastructure[5]

Google, production of lead, cadmium, brominated flame retardants if you wish to continue on the matter. And google disposal as well.

You know what would certainly allow us to deal with those things better? A system that doesn't declare them "externalities" that magically don't need to be taken into consideration anymore.

You actually hit on a couple legitimate notes here. But most of the oil thats being explored today was not possible 50 years ago. Not only because of technology but because it was not economically feasible.

And so?

Murder and torture are as old as mankind. Ever since man first invented the club he probably used it to kill another caveman.

Most people behave socially, even without rules[6]. Most cave paintings were to share information about animals, and coincided with the invention of sharp-edged tools[7]. Also, the first tools were invented millions of years ago, but the earliest known murder is Ötzi the Iceman from ~3200BCE[8]. That's a long time for no murdered bodies to have been preserved.
Also, your evidence for this claim is nothing.

If resources are prevalent in an area, it brings along with it people that will come to extract them. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post. The difference, is that while cities located in good geographic zones prosper, the ones with just a few resources to exploit will eventually fade away afterwards because they are not sustainable.

Actually, current reality is precisely the opposite. There is a tight, inverse correlation between resource abundance and economic growth rate[9] (PDF document). Not only that, but capitalist societies supplement their unsustainable cities using trade, allowing places like California where most people live in dry, hot places, so they build lots of air conditioning and a monster aqueduct. Or Dubai, where they pull money out of the ground and use it to fuel colossal, architectural dick-measuring contests and indoor ski resorts in the desert. These places aren't fading away, though.

Consumers are a major contributor to the problem.

In other words, it's you that's the problem.

Not only does that not contradict what I said, I am not a food "consumer". There is a huge permaculture garden in my backyard, tended by an old Lao woman that I live with. I also work in a bakery, closing shift, which means the overwhelming majority of what I eat is food waste, or from the backyard. You shouldn't assume that everyone else is like you.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Oh im sorry i thought you meant THIS summer not 2001

but ok still not really overpopulation more wasteful population...

reply to post by Synergy23

This link offered earlier by another user outlines a nanotech solution that is achievable within the next decade, or two max: spectrum.ieee.org...

Year 2000, flying cars. Really, give up on the "what if's" and projections because they are as useful as unicorn farts.

that is achievable within the next decade, or two max

I am all for progress, and I do believe there will be plenty in the future. But you read a press release of how things are going to be developed in the next year and wet your pants in excitement.

If we took all of them literally in the last 50 years, we'd have flying cars, cured cancer, have robotic brains, etc.

You are dividing something with 6 zeroes through something with 9, it cant be bigger than 1. Check your math.

reply to post by XB70

Also, the first tools were invented millions of years ago, but the earliest known murder is Ötzi the Iceman from ~3200BCE[8]. That's a long time for no murdered bodies to have been preserved.
Also, your evidence for this claim is nothing.

I didn't realize you had a record every person in between that has died. Please allow me a glimpse into your personal collection sometime.

Originally posted by boncho

Year 2000, flying cars. Really, give up on the "what if's" and projections because they are as useful as unicorn farts.

Except that we're not talking about random inventions that "could" happen by whim of imagination. We are talking about something that IS in development. Something that you can track the progress of with mathematical trends.

I am all for progress, and I do believe there will be plenty in the future. But you read a press release of how things are going to be developed in the next year and wet your pants in excitement.

If we took all of them literally in the last 50 years, we'd have flying cars, cured cancer, have robotic brains, etc.

edit on 20-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

I did more than read a press release. Rather, that's all you just did. You saw a "press release" I provided, and dismissed it off hand.

Citing the inevitability of nanotechnology is not comparable to the proposed invention of flying cars. There was no framework for that. It was pure science fiction from the very beginning. Blood cell sized nano machines have already been tested successfully in rats to combat diabetes (www.terasemjournals.org...)

As with the inevitable progression in computer power each year (Moore's law), nanotechnology follows a similar trend of constant development.

reply to post by Synergy23


When did I say nanotechnology isn't useful, won't be useful, or come into fruition? This thread is about here and now. I am not knocking nano tech (although even it has drawbacks/concerns) one,two.

(At the same time, some have been shown to do the opposite)

I did more than read a press release. Rather, that's all you just did. You saw a "press release" I provided, and dismissed it off hand.

I can show you a number of press releases that are just plain garbage, never will happen, not even close to happening.

If it hasn't happened, it's not relevant. Yes, some things predicted to work will as soon as projected, and countless others won't. People don't plan current projects off things 10 and 20 years away. Meaning, I can't build my electric car that's supposed to use carbon tube batteries today, and expect it to work, when the technology is only in early development.

Unicorns will come and save us with the farts before then anyhow, so it doesn't matter.

reply to post by CryHavoc


I just want to say that I agree with you and that you seem to be willing to think out of the box. Its one thing to just sit around and agree about how impossible the situation is and its another to realize that anythings possible if you just approach it right.

I have rread that the entire population of earth would fit in the state of Texas.....there may be standing room only......
Point being that if this is close to true, theres penty left over for everone by my lights......A simple acre of land would be large enough i believe for one person......it would sustain you quite well.
The trouble starts when everyone wants more than the next guy got......

reply to post by boncho


The only reason I cited nanotech was for long-term projections. In the short term, eliminate cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence and instead build these products to last and be upgraded and you save on longevity. But in an infinite growth paradigm that sane policy is rejected because the bottom line is to minimize costs (i.e. cheap fabrication) and maximize profits (i.e. obsolescence and cyclical consumption). This cost efficiency factor further motivates against recycling of these precious materials, and they end up in landfills. THAT is what I call economic suicide. The system itself is flawed.

If it were true that there wasn't enough rare earth materials to go around for everyone to make use of the computer technology we have at our disposal in the U.S. (which isn't true, even with our economic insanity -- only when *consumption* patterns are thrown in), this would be an admission of imminent collapse of the computer technologies sector of the global economy altogether. It would mean not just that there isn't enough to go around for everyone, but that within just a few short years (considering the rapid turnover from cyclical consumption every single year) there won't be enough for anyone at all. I don't agree that it is that imminent a threat.

So again: Recycle more (and design products with that in mind), build things to last (sturdy materials, no planned obsolescence) and reduce consumption rates through the elimination of marketing (ending pressure for cyclical consumption). With that model, an RBE would use up available rare materials at a slower pace than a global GDP driven infinite growth economy.

From there on out, molecular manufacturing is a near future technology that is a definite development (we know for a fact it's feasible as molecular biology proves, and recent trial tests also prove) barring, of course, some inexplicable end in R&D. On that basis, it is perfectly reasonable to cite as a long-term alternative. 10-20 years isn't a very long time. It is inequivalent to associate molecular manufacturing with dreams of flying cars that had no objective framework. No progress to track. Nothing. It's a strawman.

Originally posted by boncho
People don't plan current projects off things 10 and 20 years away.

Your posts are usually rather more thought out than that Boncho.
How many examples of "people planning current projects off things 10 and 20 years away" would you like?

Lol @ the people talking about the resources.... you guys have been controlled your entire life by governments, to think there aren't enough resources is straight-up IGNORANT. If there was no government, hemp would be used for fuel, clothing, food, plastics, etc.. our food would come from gardens, planted everywhere free for ALL to take from. Need more food? HOW ABOUT INSECTS! They are WAY better than the chemically-doused crap meats we eat now and are much safer to take.

All I have to say is the ignorance flows well with some of you, open your damn eyes to the problems and get to root of it all! You will have found out government had a play in it.... bottom line, Earth could support more and is ABLE to produce the food needed. Yes there is a point that overpopulation will come, but we are not even close to that number and even if we started to, the technology is there to travel past the moon and beyond to newer planets. So lets just STFU about overpopulation, or that there aren't enough resources cause that's all bull#.

FFS, WE ARE GOOD BUT NOT WITH GOVERNMENT LEACHING THE S*** OUT OF EVERYTHING!
Oh yeah and don't be fooled, most governments work TOGETHER in order to keep the ignorance flowing.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
So I got bored and figured out how many square miles a person would have to themselves if land was distributed to all of the approximate 7 billion of earths inhabitants equally. Each person alive would have about 12 square miles all to themselves.

So is the world overpopulated?

No.

Total land area of the world 57,308,738 Sq. Miles
Total Population around 7 billion. (I used 7 billion)

For your theory to be applicable all of that land needs to be farmable, so that each person can produce all they need in life, otherwise much of that land would need to be used, as it already is, for mass farming of crops, cattle etc. Not to mention that needed for roads if we are not to be trapped in our 12 miles, airports, trains. Also there's power supplies, waste disposal etc.

Does your math take into account all of these uses of that space necessary?

Does it include land that is arid, desert, mountains, contaminated, geologically highly unstable?

As simple math it makes a simple point which is nice to know, but has no bearing on reality (don't mean to be harsh, just concise)

With the correct planning their can be enough resources for everyone and many more,but were too busy blowing ourselves up and wrecking the world with radiation.

Great research. You figured out all by yourself that there is enough land for everyone. Now why don't you move to your 12 acres on top of Aetna or maybe at the arctic circle? Did you bother to figure in liveable acreage? Did you take into account the resources available on those acres a person or family could live on?

Seriously, do you think that it is so simple as to figure up square miles of land that is not under water and divide by the number of people? You didn't put much thought into this did you?

Look at the resources available and the resources being overused right now with the current population and explain to me why the fishing grounds are barren. Explain why so many people starve every year. Explain disease.

I guess you think it is all a conspiracy and if the rich didn't eat so much everyone would be fine.