Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[edpell]

Is over population an important issue? Can any actions be taken? Should any actions be taken? Can it be addressed locally or does it require a global approach?

 

[Drakkith]

I'd say overpopulation is something we definitively have to worry about. I'd reckon it is a global issue, and not just a local one. As the wikipedia article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate states, the highest birth rates are typically in the least developed countries. Those with lack of education and contraceptives. It looks to me like a country will go through various birth rates as it develops, with the least occurring once it reaches developed status.

Hopefully, we can reach a good medium, where the birth rates about equal the death rates per year. However I know this tends to have consequences too, but more to do with the workforce and who takes care of the elderly and such.

 

[skippy1729]

Is over population an important issue? Can any actions be taken? Should any actions be taken? Can it be addressed locally or does it require a global approach?

Mother Nature will address the problem in due course. It might not be pretty.

 

[Ken Natton]

Is over population an important issue? Can any actions be taken? Should any actions be taken? Can it be addressed locally or does it require a global approach?

The answers to your questions are yes, yes, yes and probably a combination of both local and global policies would be required.

I would hate to seem like a doomsayer, the reality is that how it will all turn out is far from certain, but just how high the stakes are can be made clear by this point. In the population studies that were part of the foundations of chaos theory, the phenomenon of populations that rise exponentially and then collapse to a small fraction of their peak in repeated cycles was shown to follow a quite simple mathematical formula. One of the parameters of the formula is one of these coefficient values whose maximum value is 1. It is an expression of the current population as a proportion of capacity of the active circumstances. Understand, we could be talking about goldfish in a pond, or rabbits in a warren, or whatever. Given the prevalence of predators, of disease, of available food and of liveable space, there is a figure that might be regarded as the capacity of organisms for those circumstances, and the co-efficient number is the active population as a proportion of that capacity. So the population may cycle as high as values of greater than 0.9 and collapse to values of lower than 0.1. But all such studies reflected one universal truth. If the active population ever reaches a value of 1, the result is not the collapse of the population, but its complete annihilation. I’m not sure what today’s human population of planet Earth is as a proportion of what would be capacity, but the fact that the population continues to rise as fast as it is doing has to be a concern. There are those studies that have suggested that, though it is still rising, the rate at which it is rising is decreasing. This suggests that we might be approaching the top of the curve. But if infant mortality falls and life expectancy increases without a concomitant reduction in the birth rate, population pressures are only going to increase. It cannot but be a worry.

 

[SixNein]

Is over population an important issue? Can any actions be taken? Should any actions be taken? Can it be addressed locally or does it require a global approach?

I think a better question is what is the optimal size of humanity to achieve maximum quality of life?

 

[edpell]

I went to the "Biophysical Economics Conference" at the SUNY college of Environmental Science and Forestry a few months ago. One of the presentations by a Prof. Jack Alpert made the case for a maximum sustainable human population of 100 million. This is the smallest number I have ever seen suggested. He made some good points in support things like soil erosion rates and soil regeneration rates.

He has a youtube video

 

[Char. Limit]

Is over population an important issue? Can any actions be taken? Should any actions be taken? Can it be addressed locally or does it require a global approach?

Yes, I'd say so. We could possibly fix it with a zero population growth idea, but I doubt that could be implemented.

 

[Evo]

I went to the "Biophysical Economics Conference" at the SUNY college of Environmental Science and Forestry a few months ago. One of the presentations by a Prof. Jack Alpert made the case for a maximum sustainable human population of 100 million. This is the smallest number I have ever seen suggested. He made some good points in support things like soil erosion rates and soil regeneration rates.

He has a youtube video

The video doesn't give any way to achieve what he proposes or what he's basing his claims on. Most of Canada can't sustain crops or people. That goes for a lot of the land in the world. Water is already a problem, he forgets people need water, all those crops and animals need water. How much polution would 100 million humans produce? We can't handle waste management in most populated areas and waste is being shipped off by land and by sea to other areas.

Does he have a solution for where these people are going to find jobs? We can't employ the people we have now. And we can't afford to support them. Sustainable does not equal practical, affordable, or even reasonable. I think the world's population is too large right now.

IMO, that video was ridiculous. He's more correct with the number of humans needing to be less than 1.6 billion.

 

[mheslep]

I went to the "Biophysical Economics Conference" at the SUNY college of Environmental Science and Forestry a few months ago. One of the presentations by a Prof. Jack Alpert made the case for a maximum sustainable human population of 100 million. This is the smallest number I have ever seen suggested. He made some good points in support things like soil erosion rates and soil regeneration rates.

He has a youtube video

That narration is nonsensical and fallacy ridden. From his bio:

Designing ways to make humankind viable.

 

[edpell]

Does he have a solution for where these people are going to find jobs? We can't employ the people we have now. And we can't afford to support them. Sustainable does not equal practical, affordable, or even reasonable. I think the world's population is too large right now.

? That is 100 million a factor of 70 few than today. He agrees with you. How many do you think are sustainable?

 

[edpell]

That narration is nonsensical and fallacy ridden.

The soil erosion rates and soil formation rates seem pretty prosaic. How many do you, mheslep, think are sustainable?

 

[edpell]

Yes, I'd say so. We could possibly fix it with a zero population growth idea, but I doubt that could be implemented.

I agree. I think that is why we have moved this conversation from what should we do to what would be an ideal number. That latter requiring no action plan just philosophical discussion.

 

[drankin]

Everytime I fly I marvel at how much unused land and fresh water there is. They idea that the world is overpopulated begins to sound real rediculous. Another, "The sky is falling", story all over again. They only thing I have against the population increasing is that we will end up with more people making up things to complain about.

 

[Char. Limit]

Everytime I fly I marvel at how much unused land and fresh water there is. They idea that the world is overpopulated begins to sound real rediculous. Another, "The sky is falling", story all over again. They only thing I have against the population increasing is that we will end up with more people making up things to complain about.

[PLAIN]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001489107/4cee47acfa0be107d9652bce296f46eb_xlarge.jpeg

Seems like people agree with you there.

 

[Evo]

? That is 100 million a factor of 70 few than today. He agrees with you.

oh good lord, I was thinking 100 billion, and I was thinking he was completely out of his mind. (we had some really whacko population threads in social & Earth sciences, but this one's my fault and a doozie!)

(wipes spray off of keyboard and monitor)

NEVERMIND THEN!

I keep saying I'm severely sleep deprived.

 

[mheslep]

Old thread on the subject:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=391197

Some dozen countries that are going away, even without the benefit of those "Designing ways to make humankind viable."
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3029712&postcount=199

 

[Andre]

Incidentely, it appears that his narration is based on economics only. Maybe that the total accumulated testosterone level is also somewhat important for determining the maximum sustainable population.

 

[edpell]

Some dozen countries that are going away, even without the benefit of those "Designing ways to make humankind viable."
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3029712&postcount=199

Maybe as the population density in these countries decreases the quality and ease of life will increase and at some point they will reach an equilibrium of population (births equal to deaths).

 

[edpell]

Incidentely, it appears that his narration is based on economics only. Maybe that the total accumulated testosterone level is also somewhat important for determining the maximum sustainable population.

Let's not get stuck on Alpert he is an extremist. Do we have any more moderate calculations for sustainable number?

 

[mheslep]

Incidentely, it appears that his narration is based on economics only. Maybe that the total accumulated testosterone level is also somewhat important for determining the maximum sustainable population.

 

[mheslep]

Let's not get stuck on Alpert he is an extremist. Do we have any more moderate calculations for sustainable number?

8 billion (= 16 / 2 )

 

[edpell]

8 billion (= 16 / 2 )

It seems you are having some feelings about this subject. The question does touch on a core human emotional topic reproduction. I would guess all people have strong feelings about this subject. But I think we can manage our feelings and talk about sustainable number of humans given today's level of technology.

 

[mheslep]

It seems you are having some feelings about this subject. The question does touch on a core human emotional topic reproduction. I would guess all people have strong feelings about this subject. But I think we can manage our feelings and talk about sustainable number of humans

Ok, its your thread. Why not start it off with some relatively well established facts or data from respected sources. The video doesn't qualify, even remotely.

given today's level of technology.

Why today's technology, when this issue under almost any circumstance must be dealt with over generations?

 

[edpell]

There is an organization called "Population Institute" their website is http://www.populationinstitute.org/programs/sustainability/
They say the sustainable population is 5.7 billion.

Then there is the "Optimum Population Trust" at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html
They propose numbers from 2.7 billion to 5.1 billion depending on assumptions.

Here is a paper that makes reference to predictions from 0.1 to 2.0 billion. http://www.evfit.com/population_max.htm#note10
With the papers author chiming in at 0.6 billion.

Optimum Human Population Size
Gretchen C. Daily University of California (Berkeley) Anne H. Ehrlich and Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University (July 1994)
offer "To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technology change radically, the optimum number of people to exist simultaneously is [sic km] in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people."
from http://dieoff.org/page99.htm

 

[mheslep]

...

Optimum Human Population Size
Gretchen C. Daily University of California (Berkeley) Anne H. Ehrlich and Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University (July 1994)
offer "To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technology change radically, the optimum number of people to exist simultaneously is [sic km] in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people."
from http://dieoff.org/page99.htm

Erlich was famously wrong to the point of derangement.

If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000

"the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

Actually Erlich did turn out to be gambler, and lost $10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

 

[mheslep]

I suggest

http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/09/27/Simon.pdf"
Julian L. Simon
Science, New Series, Vol. 208, No. 4451. (Jun. 27, 1980), pp. 1431-1437.

 

[lisab]

Erlich was famously wrong to the point of derangement.

If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000

Hmm...he may have had a point there...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=429726

 

[edpell]

OK we do not like Alpert and Erlich. Let's try a different tract setting an upper bound that we can all agree on.

Can we all agree that one human per square meter of Earth's surface area is not sustainable with today's technology? That is 5E14, 500 trillion are not sustainable. Can anyone offer a more exact upper bound?

 

[Hells]

Everytime I fly I marvel at how much unused land and fresh water there is. They idea that the world is overpopulated begins to sound real rediculous. Another, "The sky is falling", story all over again. They only thing I have against the population increasing is that we will end up with more people making up things to complain about.

That's funny. Just the other day I was at an overcrowded beach and felt, darn, how can anyone think we are not overpopulated.

Of course neither of these 2 examples contribute anything to the debate.

Ok, its your thread. Why not start it off with some relatively well established facts or data from respected sources.

What kind of references do you want for Biodiversity crisis, global warming, water scarcity, oil depletion?

Check these BBC articles, especially the graphics which are cited from UNEP.

Biodiversity crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3667300.stm
Water scarcity: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946.stm
Global warming: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2005/20051103_GlobalTemperatures.pdf

 

[Evo]

OK we do not like Alpert and Erlich. Let's try a different tract setting an upper bound that we can all agree on.

Can we all agree that one human per square meter of Earth's surface area is not sustainable with today's technology? That is 5E14, 500 trillion are not sustainable. Can anyone offer a more exact upper bound?

Some questions I'd ask.

Do you know what percent of land on Earth is habitable?

Now subtract the arable land from the habitable land, that should give you an idea of the maximum amount of land can be occupied without taking any other limits into consideration. Calculate how much food the arable land can produce, and that should give you an idea of how many people optimally can be fed a healthy diet, again without taking any limits into account.

Now calculate where your people can live, their proximity to food and water, how food and water could be transported to the people that don't have immediate access. Now calculate how that food can be transported to your people and at what cost to the available habitable land space, environment and resources.

This is just scratching the tip of the iceburg. Where are these people going to work? Where is money going to come from? Who is going to provide the healthcare they need and where is the healthcare and who pays for it?

What about nature and the environment? Surely not all habitable land can be taken by humans. Where will the trash go? Where will the animals live?

Have any of you read the UN's paper "Livestock's long shadow"?

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM