over population

[Gamma Male]

What are your opinions on overpopulation? Are there too many of us? Should we be making efforts to reduce population growth? Will our current lifestyles be sustainable in the decades to come?

I'm busy but will post my opinions and perhaps a poll later.

[Hyper]

No they wont if you think everything will remain linear. (Technology, production etc)

I don't think overpopulation is a problem if humanity invested enough research into the right technological advancemets.

BUT knowing humanity we won't do enough in time to avoid some sort of major economic crash/stagnation that could last decades.

So we'll only get properly working on the things we need to sustain global populations and our cushy excistences once shit starts hitting the fan.

It will of course hit hardest in 3rd and 2nd world countries and there might be some armed conflicts as a result, depending on how deprived people will be and how long economic stagnation would last...

Or maybe some big ass natural disaster will erase this dilemma, cycle of life and shit.

EDIT:

On a more doomsday thought it might hit some 1st world countries the hardest if we wasted too much of our resources greedily without having the necessary technology to sustain populations and way of life the countries lacking in natural resources would be hit the hardest some of the most rich countries in terms of natural resources are 2nd or 3rd world countries.

[jessie3]

I don't really care for over population ( right now ) but I do think there are to many of us here on earth. I think Trying to stop over population is like trying to stop racism, drug's or the spread of diseases, it's not going to happened and I kinda do think that our lifestyle will be suitable for the coming up decades but they will eventually change.

[Harry Smith]

If somehow we did find a cure for cancer then overpopulation would be a major issue

[CosmicNoodle]

As far as I'm concerned there are far too many of us as there is, we seriously need to cut back on population or find some way of making bigger populations sustanable

[phuckphace]

As far as I'm concerned there are far too many of us as there is, we seriously need to cut back on population or find some way of making bigger populations sustanable

agreed.

http://i.imgur.com/usrkvtq.gif

looks like a clusterfuck if you ask me. I mean sure we're only going to destroy the only habitable planet we know of with no way to undo it, but it's worth it having a Walmart on every street! (not)

[Miserabilia]

What are your opinions on overpopulation? 1 Are there too many of us? 2 Should we be making efforts to reduce population growth? 3 Will our current lifestyles be sustainable in the decades to come? 4

I'm busy but will post my opinions and perhaps a poll later.


1: I think overpopulation is a serious problem but that it can theoreticaly be sustainable, if so many humans weren't such turds

2: with the way we do things currently, yes

3: Well that's the difficult part, I think we should focus on having a less damagin impact on our living envirement first, and be stricter on birth controll especialy in population booming countries like india, even though they are already trying to reduce it there

4: definetly not, and there are going to be changes anyway. A new section of countries will become the new world powers and we can only hope they learned from our industrial and commercial mistakes

[thatcountrykid]

Easy ban,families like the duggars. That drops the gen pop by a few hundred.

[Gamma Male]

Easy ban,families like the duggars. That drops the gen pop by a few hundred.

What? I have absolutely no idea any of that means. :P

[CharlieHorse]

Our rate of population growth is absurd. We need to limit the population growth if we want to survive, and keep our planet healthy. I'm almost certain I won't have kids in effort to lower the population. I just hope others will see the issue too and take measures to help limit the population too.

[Vlerchan]

Our rate of population growth is absurd. We need to limit the population growth if we want to survive, and keep our planet healthy. I'm almost certain I won't have kids in effort to lower the population. I just hope others will see the issue too and take measures to help limit the population too.
It's not an issue in the first world.

Actually, here, our birth rates are too low, which may bring it's own negative effects heading into the future.

[Lovelife090994]

Humanity has kept a steady population for thousands of years, it took thousands of years just to reach one billion people worldwide. However from advanced medicine and the discovery for oil uses the population exploded exponentially and may continue to do so. I've still no clue how India and China have over 1 billion people each and India with almost 1.5 billion people (more than whole continents!) But apparently restricting children doesn't help and you don't want a negative birth rate (in other words high mortality rate). I mean what can we do? It's 2014 and still over 1 billion are in poverty and starving or dying of thirst. How can we help the homeless? Do we? Not sure.

[thatcountrykid]

What? I have absolutely no idea any of that means. :P

You've never heard of 19 kids and counting? This ladies been popping out kids left and right and she still wants more!!!!!

[Hudor]

In India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and in fact many of the poorer nations, extreme poverty combined with the lack of education causes people to produce more and more kids. The concept behind this is to have more hands for work, that is unskilled labour in any form which is irrational and insensible to say the least. The parents are unable, unwilling(some times) to get their kids educated which traps the children in the web of poverty akin to their predecessors. Also the lack of money and a big family results in lack of care, malnourishment and deaths.

Moreover the parents' meagre resources after their deaths get distributed among their off springs and the process continues over generations resulting in reducing resources, lack of education, inability to do any thing other than the job done by the parents and a perpetual imprisonment.

What are your opinions on overpopulation? It is a grave problem indeed.

Are there too many of us? In totality yes but the distribution is very irregular.

Should we be making efforts to reduce population growth?Yes, unless we are relying on Nature to do the job for us.

Will our current lifestyles be sustainable in the decades to come? Apart from a few conscientious citizens, no because we are essentially acting like woodcutters cutting the branches they happen to be sitting upon.

[phuckphace]

In India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and in fact many of the poorer nations, extreme poverty combined with the lack of education causes people to produce more and more kids. The concept behind this is to have more hands for work, that is unskilled labour in any form which is irrational and insensible to say the least. The parents are unable, unwilling(some times) to get their kids educated which traps the children in the web of poverty akin to their predecessors. Also the lack of money and a big family results in lack of care, malnourishment and deaths.

Moreover the parents' meagre resources after their deaths get distributed among their off springs and the process continues over generations resulting in reducing resources, lack of education, inability to do any thing other than the job done by the parents and a perpetual imprisonment.

What are your opinions on overpopulation? It is a grave problem indeed.

Are there too many of us? In totality yes but the distribution is very irregular.

Should we be making efforts to reduce population growth?Yes, unless we are relying on Nature to do the job for us.

Will our current lifestyles be sustainable in the decades to come? Apart from a few conscientious citizens, no because we are essentially acting like woodcutters cutting the branches they happen to be sitting upon.

good post, I agree 100%

[tovaris]

there is curently no overpopulation on this world.
If we were for example to populate an area as densely as new york is populated, we would only need an area as big as turkey.
The curent level of population is conpletly sustainable.

[phuckphace]

there is curently no overpopulation on this world.
If we were for example to populate an area as densely as new york is populated, we would only need an area as big as turkey.
The curent level of population is conpletly sustainable.

untrue, because overpopulation isn't defined by how much Lebensraum everyone has. it's more related to the amount of resources that large populations consume, and the externalities that result (pollution, disease, etc.) that's why the word "sustainability" is used here, in referring to sustainability of resources. just because the Earth technically has enough physical space for say, 100 trillion humans (assuming everyone was packed literally shoulder-to-shoulder and unable to move) doesn't mean it's actually workable.

[tovaris]

untrue, because overpopulation isn't defined by how much Lebensraum everyone has. it's more related to the amount of resources that large populations consume, and the externalities that result (pollution, disease, etc.) that's why the word "sustainability" is used here, in referring to sustainability of resources. just because the Earth technically has enough physical space for say, 100 trillion humans (assuming everyone was packed literally shoulder-to-shoulder and unable to move) doesn't mean it's actually workable.

just look at europe for example, so many feelds, we can grow enouth food for ourselvef, for our animals, for export... we can have enouth food for ourselves

[jacko]

With good governments and clever, sustainable ideas, the amount of people on the planet won't be a problem. Only if we continue the current ways, we could experience major problems

[Gamma Male]

just look at europe for example, so many feelds, we can grow enouth food for ourselvef, for our animals, for export... we can have enouth food for ourselves

Yes, we have enough room, but overpopulation has always been more about pollution and lack of resources than space. If we keep growing at the current rates and keep polluting the planet and using up our resources our current lifestyles will not be sustainable in the decades to come. We're already cutting down huge swatches of the Amazon rainforest to make room for grazing land for cows and factory farms. If we don't make drastic changes to our lifestyles soon this planet is going to be too fucked up to survive on soon enough.

A conversion to veganism would help. :P

[Vlerchan]

A conversion to veganism would help. :P
Or we could just stop giving the animals so much damn living space?

[Gamma Male]

Or we could just stop giving the animals so much damn living space?

Regardless of how much living space we give them pigs, cattle, and chickens are extreme wastes of resources and land. The majority of our crops(soybeans, corn, wheat, etc) go to feed animals, animals that output much less food than they eat. If we stopped breeding new animals the space required for us to grow food would go down by more than half. Not to mention that cows are the number one cause of climate change.


There's also the moral arguments which I'm not going to get into because they aren't relevant to this thread.

[phuckphace]

I've been over this before. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208752) what is required is at least a partial return to pre-Industrial Revolution population sizes and lifestyles. small-scale agriculture as practiced historically for millennia is perfectly sustainable. switching to veganism is unworkable for several reasons. (http://authoritynutrition.com/top-5-reasons-why-vegan-diets-are-a-terrible-idea/) (oh boy here we go)

[Vlerchan]

... what is required is at least a partial return to pre-Industrial Revolution population sizes and lifestyles.
How exactly do you plan on eliminating six sevenths of our still growing population?

---

I don't believe that sustaining a future population food-wise is not going to be so problematic with future technological advances (vertical farming etc.) and will almost definitely not require reversion to wide-scale subsistence farming or anything like it.

Not to mention that cows are the number one cause of climate change.
I'm not sure if this is true. I know that cattle produce large amounts of methane and contribute more than exhaust fumes but I would have thought that industrial output would beat it.

[phuckphace]

How exactly do you plan on eliminating six sevenths of our still growing population?

easier said than done, I know. it would necessarily require moving away from consumption-fueled market capitalism over several generations time. at this point, it's mostly a waiting game which our generation won't live to see the results of.

I don't believe that sustaining a future population food-wise is not going to be so problematic with future technological advances (vertical farming etc.) and will almost definitely not require reversion to wide-scale subsistence farming or anything like it.

I'm a fan of taking the tried-and-true approach because it makes more sense than risking the externalities of dependence on technology (which is already a big problem now).

I'm not sure if this is true. I know that cattle produce large amounts of methane and contribute more than exhaust fumes but I would have thought that industrial output would beat it.

volcanoes contribute quite a bit as well.

[Vlerchan]

... it would necessarily require moving away from consumption-fueled market capitalism over several generations time.
I'm more curious about how you plan to eliminate the 6 billion people we are over pre-Industrial Revolution population size.

Reverting away from liberal-capatalism on its own won't make that happen.

I'm a fan of taking the tried-and-true approach because it makes more sense than risking the externalities of dependence on technology
Would you mind explaining what you believe the 'externalities of dependence on technology' are in general, and then explain the 'externalities of dependence of skyscrapers and fancy light bulbs' in particular?

---

There's also nothing I'd like less than a retrogression to wide-scale subsistence farming. I'd rather take the 'risk' which I really don't see as a 'risk'.

[Gamma Male]

I've been over this before. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208752) what is required is at least a partial return to pre-Industrial Revolution population sizes and lifestyles. small-scale agriculture as practiced historically for millennia is perfectly sustainable. switching to veganism is unworkable for several reasons. (http://authoritynutrition.com/top-5-reasons-why-vegan-diets-are-a-terrible-idea/) (oh boy here we go)

Switching to veganism on a large scale is perfectly workable. Not only that, it is much more ecologically sound and sustainable than omnivorous lifestyles are for reasons I've already explained. The article you linked to didn't even mention any of the sustainability or ecological aspects of veganism, it basically just said veganism may not be healthy for everyone as a diet and that vegans are all obnoxious bigots who aren't to be trusted. There are many people who are unable to convert to veganism for a variety of reasons, but the vast majority of people living in first and second world countries are capable of converting to veganism and not experiencing any negative health effects, with proper planning of course.

I'm not sure if this is true. I know that cattle produce large amounts of methane and contribute more than exhaust fumes but I would have thought that industrial output would beat it.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organization, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertilizer to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases

So basically, cattle contribute to all sorts of crazy bad shit concerning the environment. One solution would be to breed less of them. This will happen if demand for meat decreases.
volcanoes contribute quite a bit as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6912/20140506/volcanic-eruptions-could-be-slowing-down-global-warming.htm

False. That's just a myth. You'll find that several studies support the notion that volcanoes may in fact slow down global warming.


I'd like to mention that personally sustainability is just a minor bonus to me, and that the main reason I'm vegan is for ethical reason which I'm not going into right now because they're irrelevant to the current debate.

[phuckphace]

I'm more curious about how you plan to eliminate the 6 billion people we are over pre-Industrial Revolution population size.

Reverting away from liberal-capitalism on its own won't make that happen.

reverting away from it and then waiting for the population level to correct itself over time (i.e. the previous generations die of old age faster than they reproduce) is the waiting game that I was referring to. it would realistically take a couple of centuries at least.

that's assuming we don't have a pandemic like the Black Death that takes care of the problem for us (something I'd like to avoid).

There's also nothing I'd like less than a retrogression to wide-scale subsistence farming. I'd rather take the 'risk' which I really don't see as a 'risk'.

why not?

The article you linked to didn't even mention any of the sustainability or ecological aspects of veganism, it basically just said veganism may not be healthy for everyone as a diet and that vegans are all obnoxious bigots who aren't to be trusted.

:lol3: it actually just said that humans are supposed to consume animal and plant foods because we evolved to do so and require certain nutrients that must be obtained from as many sources as possible. science said it, I believe it!

[Gamma Male]

:lol3: it actually just said that humans are supposed to consume animal and plant foods because we evolved to do so and require certain nutrients that must be obtained from as many sources as possible. science said it, I believe it!

The only nutrient we require that can't be found in plants naturally is b12, but that can be easily synthesized. We do not require meat or dairy in our diets to live healthily. The fact that we evolved to do so is irrelevant. We evolved to do many things which we now consider obsolete or unnecessary.

[phuckphace]

The fact that we evolved to do so is irrelevant. We evolved to do many things which we now consider obsolete or unnecessary.

it's perfectly relevant when our evolution has led us to a certain method of living that remains crucial to our good health. externalities can change over time (the obsolete things you're referring to) but when it comes to our internal biology, things most likely exist because of beneficial traits acquired during our evolution. tl;dr being omnivorous (eating everything) arose for a good evolutionary reason, and there's no evidence for that being irrelevant now.

[Vlerchan]

reverting away from it and then waiting for the population level to correct itself over time (i.e. the previous generations die of old age faster than they reproduce) is the waiting game that I was referring to. it would realistically take a couple of centuries at least.
I'd think it would take much longer, though in a few centuries I'd hope that we'd be able to move masses of people off-planet.

why not?
I come from a background in agriculture and it's just an awful way to live, I've always thought.

It's not like the romanticized image you probably have in your head.

[Gamma Male]

it's perfectly relevant when our evolution has led us to a certain method of living that remains crucial to our good health.
An omnivorous diet is not crucial to our health. A properly planned vegan diet can be every bit as healthy as an omnivorous one. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

externalities can change over time (the obsolete things you're referring to) but when it comes to our internal biology, things most likely exist because of beneficial traits acquired during our evolution. tl;dr being omnivorous (eating everything) arose for a good evolutionary reason, and there's no evidence for that being irrelevant now.

Yes, in most cultures and climates in our evolution an omnivorous diet was the most efficient and healthy, I don't dispute that. But for the vast majority of people living in first and second world countries a vegan diet is possible and just as healthy as an omnivorous one. The only difference is a vegan diet is many times more ecologically sound and less wasteful of resources. In the event over population reaches critical levels, meat should be one of the first things to go. An omnivorous diet may once of made the most evolutionary sense, but in our current environment, one dependent on fossil fuels and agriculture, a vegan diet makes the most sense. It is one if the best ways to save resources and combat overpopulation.

[tovaris]

Yes, we have enough room, but overpopulation has always been more about pollution and lack of resources than space. If we keep growing at the current rates and keep polluting the planet and using up our resources our current lifestyles will not be sustainable in the decades to come. We're already cutting down huge swatches of the Amazon rainforest to make room for grazing land for cows and factory farms. If we don't make drastic changes to our lifestyles soon this planet is going to be too fucked up to survive on soon enough.

A conversion to veganism would help. :P

What you see as lack of resources i see as stupidety and unsustainable use, not unsustainabe population. If we cannot confortably feed all erth dweling humans (that is european standard in regards to amount every mouth gets) at the world populatin of 10 B than we deserve to die of starvation, for it would be wery stupid not to use and reuse the resources so esely availabel.

on a lighter note, veganism is just stupid, one cannot survive on such a how to put it, melnurashing diet

[Vlerchan]

What you see as lack of resources i see as stupidety and unsustainable use, not unsustainabe population. If we cannot confortably feed all erth dweling humans (that is european standard in regards to amount every mouth gets) at the world populatin of 10 B than we deserve to die of starvation, for it would be wery stupid not to use and reuse the resources so esely availabel.
If the 9 billion people we will have on earth within about 50 years were to use resources at the per capita rate of the rich countries, annual resource production would have to be about 8 times as great as it is now.If 9 billion people were to have a North American diet we would need about 4.5 billion ha of cropland, but there are only 1.4 billion ha of cropland on the planet.

[...]

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf

[Gamma Male]

What you see as lack of resources i see as stupidety and unsustainable use, not unsustainabe population. If we cannot confortably feed all erth dweling humans (that is european standard in regards to amount every mouth gets) at the world populatin of 10 B than we deserve to die of starvation, for it would be wery stupid not to use and reuse the resources so esely availabel.

Right. It's not the high population that's the problem, it's our wasteful lifestyles.

on a lighter note, veganism is just stupid, one cannot survive on such a how to put it, melnurashing diet

This simply isn't true.

[Calyx]

Over population isn't the problem, if the whole population lived in a giant city with a population density the same as Paris we could all fit into France and while this isn't feasible or likely it shows us how much room we have available to us.
Also, attempts to manage populations do have disadvantages for example China's one child policy means there simply won't be enough people to look after the aging population and the supply of cheap labour is decreasing.
The problem is over exploitation of resources which can be solved by using renewable sources of energy and sustainably logging, fishing etc, as well as making use of technology where it will help.

[tovaris]

If the 9 billion people we will have on earth within about 50 years were to use resources at the per capita rate of the rich countries, annual resource production would have to be about 8 times as great as it is now.If 9 billion people were to have a North American diet we would need about 4.5 billion ha of cropland, but there are only 1.4 billion ha of cropland on the planet.

[...]

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf

we would need 4.5B hA to procuce it, but keep in mind that one feeld can give crop up to 2,4 times a year in central europe and more when you aproche the equator so 1,4 times 3 = 4,2 more than enouth for now, and if we were to use hidtopinics and production of food on roftops in cities.... we would have plenty, not to nemtion the advances in diferent new croses of plants..... and the projected incres in yeeld

[morsar]

It's not that there are too many of us, it's how the speed of our population growth has increased vastly over the past 1 or 2 centuries and continues to do so.

[Miserabilia]

It's not that there are too many of us, it's how the speed of our population growth has increased vastly over the past 1 or 2 centuries and continues to do so.

And that is the cause of overpopulation (there being too many of us).