overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

Max Faust

I have no exact figure, but I have seen the number 6.8 billion being used recently for how many human beings there is on this earth now. To what extent is overpopulation a driving force behind today's very serious political and economical problems that so many countries are grappling with? This is only personal conjecture, but I have a feeling that we are rapidly approaching, if we haven't already reached, a kind of breaking point in this respect. No matter how that plays out, it's going to be painful. We can already see that "life" is a commodity of very relative (but steadily declining) value - and the "rich" nations are putting up real and metaphorical fences to protect themselves against the inevitable influx of desperate people.

What can "we" do? Each and every one of us? The situation seems hopeless.

Evo

I had posted this before, it seems that overpopulation isn't a popular topic, but something needs to be done.

The Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences on Population Growth and Sustainability

World population is growing at the unprecedented rate of almost 100 million people every year, and human activities are producing major changes in the global environment. If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged. science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty
for much of the world.

The following joint statement, prepared by the Officers of the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, reflects the judgement of a group of scientists knowledgeable about the historic contributions of science and technology to economic growth and environmental protection. It also reflects the shared view that sustainable development implies a future in which life is improved worldwide through economic development, where local environments and the biosphere are protected, and science is mobilized to create new opportunities for human progress.

Through this statement, the two academies wish to draw attention to these issues and to stimulate debate among scientists. decision makers. and the public. In addition. the two institutions, in cooperation with other academies, propose to organize a scientific conference in early 1993 to explore these issues in detail.

THE REALITY OF THE PROBLEM

Scientific and technological innovations, such as in agriculture, have been able to overcome many pessimistic predictions about resource constraints affecting human welfare. Never. the less, the present patterns of human activity accentuated by population growth should make
even those most optimistic about future scientific progress pause and reconsider the wisdom of ignoring these threats to our planet.

Unrestrained resource consumption for energy production and other uses, especially if the developing world strives to achieve living standards based on the same levels of consumption as the developed world, could lead to catastrophic outcomes for the global environment.

In places where resources are administered effectively, population growth does not inevitably imply deterioration in the quality of the environment. Nevertheless, each additional human being requires natural resources for sustenance, each produces by-products that become part of the ecosystem, and each pursues economic and other activities that affect the natural world. While the impact of population growth varies from place to place and from one environmental domain to another, the overall pace of environmental changes has unquestionably been accelerated by the recent expansion of the human population.

http://dieoff.org/page7.htm

Unfortunately there was a huge backlash against the UN by the Catholic church for stating that overpopulation was a problem and the UN was forced to drop it.

Max Faust

Quote by Evo

it seems that overpopulation isn't a popular topic

The probably unintended (?) pun here made me giggle.

It seems terribly irresponsible to not take this issue seriously - but then again why should that be surprising? Anyone who tries to point at this as a problem will be lambasted from east and west with more or less Godwin-law regulated arguments. As long as there are strong economical incentives for cranking up the population numbers in poor countries, this is what will happen. My personal suggestion for an in-part solution would be to exterminate the entire global financial sector, starting with government bonds.

mheslep

The rate of population growth for the world is slowing. Population (not rate) is actually shrinking in many developed countries, and if not for immigration would be shrinking in many more. So the solution seems to be to encourage development.

Some examples:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...hl=en_US&dl=en
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...im=country:JPN
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...im=country:DEU
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...hl=en_US&dl=en

*brainstorm*

Population research is always painful because it carries with it the implication of population controls. It's no wonder that one post has already mentioned "extermination." No one likes being targeted for "population control" in the supposed interest of everyone else.

That said, there are resource problems and social problems that emerge from infrastructure and land use patterns. It's important to distinguish between population as a cause directly, though, and culture as a mitigating factor between individuals and resources.

Whenever anyone complains about overpopulation, the first thing I ask them is if they drive. Driving creates traffic and stresses infrastructure by allowing relatively few individuals to travel per unit-width road. Also, the large cargo-capacity of many vehicles encourages people to consume more, which stimulates waste and resource depletion and waste over a wider supply-chain range.

I don't know how many more people could live sustainably if everyone or at least most people would give up their cars and bike or walk for transportation, but I imagine it would be manyfold. When the conflict is between a luxury like traffic-reduction and a human right like having children, it seems clear to me that one person's human rights shouldn't be constrained for another person to drive everywhere all the time.

There are plenty of ways to maintain luxuries like driving while reducing their everyday usage levels. Rental cars can be used and insurance companies could make it easier for people to share cars. Businesses and residences can move closer to each other. That's not an easy task, but I think it will be a slowly evolving social-geographical pattern that creates more freedom for population growth far into the future.

This is the peaceful alternative to doomsday scenarios of war and famine typical of traditional Malthusian population forecasting.

phyzguy

Overpopulation is clearly an issue. Perhaps you should leave and help the rest of us out (just kidding).

Max Faust

Quote by brainstorm

the peaceful alternative to doomsday scenarios

The last time I was having this discussion, I suggested (half in jest) that voluntary sterilization should be rewarded, for instance with 10,000 dollars if you're a man and 50,000 if you're a woman. Paid in cash, no questions asked. As you can imagine, this caused a bit of an outrage.

Evo

First, tv shows that praise people for having 19 kids and paying all of their expenses should be stopped. We're praising people for being socially irresponsible. Sex education should be a must in all schools. We need to educate people on how overpopulation is hurting the planet and that a responsible number of children per couple is 2. There was a "zero population growth" movement in the 70's and it stuck with me. It was just educational, no rewards, no penalties, just trying to break the old way of thinking that you need a houseful of kids to be happy.

ThomasEdison

Quote by Max Faust

The last time I was having this discussion, I suggested (half in jest) that voluntary sterilization should be rewarded, for instance with 10,000 dollars if you're a man and 50,000 if you're a woman. Paid in cash, no questions asked. As you can imagine, this caused a bit of an outrage.

Where is my $10,000 ?

*brainstorm*

Quote by Max Faust

The last time I was having this discussion, I suggested (half in jest) that voluntary sterilization should be rewarded, for instance with 10,000 dollars if you're a man and 50,000 if you're a woman. Paid in cash, no questions asked. As you can imagine, this caused a bit of an outrage.

I have heard that people were picked up by local police for sterilization prior to WWII. If it was done on a reward basis, it would be really sad to see all the people lined up to sacrifice their reproductive rights/choice to avoid foreclosure.

I think population discourse is so popular (is that a pun in some way?) because people are able to transcend the micro-reality of everyday resource-use to fantasize about the macro-level where their everyday activities pale in the shadow of the large-scale events they imagine being responsible for the fate of "the world."

Global warming, population issues, globalism, and even nationalism and localism are all epistemological/ontological frames that dwarf individuals in their everyday activities.

How is "overpopulation" a problem in your everyday life? How much more land is used to feed a family with four kids than a family of two kids? Compare the resource depletion of a couple with four kids and one car, who conserve economic resources by cooking efficient, inexpensive food like dry beans, pastas, grains, etc. to a young professional couple with no kids, two cars, lots of business trips, plenty of disposable income to consume and throw away as much as they want, and the justification that they are saving the world from overpopulation by not having kids!

Now you can say, "what about when the kids grow up and each have four kids, etc.?" I don't know if that is as much of a problem as resource inefficiency as a result of various cultures of consumption and industry/distribution. Certainly it doesn't hurt anything for people to have only one or two kids, and I even think it's nice for kids to have to share their parents less instead of more, but I think as far as planetary resources go, culture is so much more influential than human quantity.

To avoid finger-pointing and calls for social controls (always at someone else's expense/cost), I think any discussion of population control should be accompanied by one about cultures of consumption and resource-utilization efficiency. It's not fair to talk about controlling reproductive rights without curtailing consumption and industrial resource waste.

Evo

Just to show a striking similarity between population growth and world temperature over the same time period. This is not about Climate Change, it's about overpopulation.

*The_Absolute*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

I hope we don't see the above scenario within any of our lifetimes.

Other than in China, there are no other measures being taken to control the population. Are there similar policies in India?

Poor, uneducated, and often illiterate people reproduce many times more so than their social counterparts. These people will one day outnumber the educated, middle and upper-classes in every single country and continent.

A Malthusian catastrophe is utterly inevitable.

See the documentary "2100" which is available for viewing on youtube. To get a better understanding of what I'm saying.

*brainstorm*

Quote by Evo

Just to show a striking similarity between population growth and world temperature over the same time period. This is not about Climate Change, it's about overpopulation.

I wasn't saying that there is or isn't a correlation between global warming and global population growth. I was pointing out that when people think in macro-theories like these, their attention tends to shift away from their behavior and power as individuals in everyday life. Furthermore, they forget that in order for population control to be attempted, some individuals have to make an attempt to exercise power/control over other individuals, which brings rights into question, and is a form of repressive violence. I wonder if people realize they are arguing in the direction of repressive violence in this thread. It's easy to forget when you frame it as a macro-scale issue where the lives of individuals become little more than pixels making up a bigger picture.

*brainstorm*

Quote by The_Absolute

A Malthusian catastrophe is utterly inevitable.

Do you have any idea how some people react to a statement like this when they don't have the critical intelligence to question the underlying assumptions? Never mind, I'll just tell you - it produces a strong sense of fear when people are faced with the threat of unacceptable catastrophe combined with no hope that it is preventable.

If you want to avoid your ideas having a potentially terrorizing effect on some people, you should include some achievable alternative scenarios. What is the point of alarmism?

russ_watters

Quote by The_Absolute

A Malthusian catastrophe is utterly inevitable.

As with every other catastrophy you've posted your fear about on PF in the last year, this one is nonsense too. Population growth rate slows as countries develop, so developed countries will level off (most already have). Countries like India and China are already overpopulated, but with development will come a drop in population. Africa may have problems, but they won't spread to the western world.

*brainstorm*

Quote by russ_watters

As with every other catastrophy you've posted your fear about on PF in the last year, this one is nonsense too. Population growth rate slows as countries develop, so developed countries will level off (most already have). Countries like India and China are already overpopulated, but with development will come a drop in population. Africa may have problems, but they won't spread to the western world.

I wonder if people who hold onto this logic of developed and developing countries developing differently in terms of population patterns realize that the only reason these differences happen is because of draconian resistance against migration.

Migration control IS a catastrophe of development. Humans naturally migrate to expand to seek more resources when their cultures prove successful for achieving population growth. Eventually, humans should start migrating into outer space and other planets. There's no reason that repressive control over population and migration should become a permanent state of affairs for human life. If it does, it is only because a sufficient number of people have become completely unable to empathize with the plights of those whose will to reproduce, migrate, or both is repressed.

Everything spreads globally one way or the other. All attempts to contain humanity and culture within separated regions ever achieves is global repression, its discontents, and the eruptions of violence that occur as a result.

Max Faust

Quote by russ_watters

Africa may have problems, but they won't spread to the western world.

I'd wager that African problems in this respect will spread to the western world in (at least) two different ways: On is quite indirect, based in the need for some kind of economical sustenance for the growing population; and that is deforestation, depletion of natural resources and pollution. The other is a very direct tendency of migration towards the north (Europe), by any means available, including illegal ones, causing an increase of social problems and crime.

phyzguy	Overpopulation is clearly an issue. Perhaps you should leave and help the rest of us out (just kidding).

Evo Mentor Blog Entries: 4	Just to show a striking similarity between population growth and world temperature over the same time period. This is not about Climate Change, it's about overpopulation. Attached Thumbnails