Overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

[John Galaor]

You mean for the average rate of growth in 210 years?
Is this too short a period to measure an average growth ratio for the planet?

What is the bias you are contemplating? I cannot guess it. You must enlighten me. I am eager to learn.
John Galaor

 

[heusdens]

Digging up some info on my social-geography school lessons, we should consider the issue of demography as follows:

1. In primite societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot.

2. If a society progresses economically and scientifically, we can drop down death rates (like infant mortality, and longer aging), but birth rates are initially still high.

3. After suffcient progression, death rates still drop, but also birth rates will drop, and ultimately will stabilize around the same numbers. If you have sufficient access to healthcare and have sufficient economic means, you don't need or want many children, and population grow stabilizes, sometimes will even cause a tendency of a aging population (this seems to trouble now a lot of developed nations - there aren't enough youngsters to provide for the health and services needed by the aging population).

Our current problem is - in short - that while developing nations become developed, they will have temporarily an overshoot of population, since the death rates will drop, but the birth rates will not drop immediately, only sometime later.

This causes the excess population, developing nations have a young population, but are still poor.

I believe around 2075 or so, the population grow will come to a halt, but then we will likely have around 9 billion people. But food sources and other resources will become short.

In fact - and what I think is what is right and best policy - we should do the most to develop the underdeveloped world so that they can reach the same level of economy and prosperity and social services as the developed world is already used to, since as longer it takes to reach that level, the longer the population overshoot will take.

As advanced industrial nations, we should take responsibility, and transform our economies as quickly as possible towards renewable resources, and facilitate the developing countries in having a fair share of remaining resources and aid them in access to new technology which uses resources more efficiently and economically.

If we fail to do so, if the developing nations stay too far behind and can never catch up, we will be sitting on a time bom, since the population will grow too large, and we will meet resource scarcities.

This will lead to broad scale warfare globally over scarce resources (water, energy, minerals, etc.), mass hunger and starvation, etc.

The leading countries of the developing world, primarily the USA, is not acting responsibly in my opinion, since their keep themselves dependend on scarce resources like oil, and acted unjustfully by invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (which as we know now, has plenty of valid resources beneath the ground, of course that was already known, since the russians had already figured that out, but we have been lead to believe that the only reason for invading Afghanistan were the establishing of democracy - this strategy will ultimately fail, and citizins of Afghanistan will be the victim of this).

USA and other developed countries have enough scientific and technological capacities to become energy independend, using renewables only, within 20-30 years. That is, if they really want to. Warfare is much more expensive, and does not provide any real solution, in fact it's an anti-solution.

We need more land area to grow food for a growing population. But circa 1/3 of the world's usable ground is devestated by desertification. Both in China, Northern Africa, Middle east, Australia and other regions are millions of acres of potentially usuable land, but which is now devestated or threatened to become a desert.
We would need a global plan to make any possible effort to restore those areas, for instance with the implementation of large scale solar power plants that use the land for producing electricity (around 2020 this can be as cost effective as currently using oil) and potentially also for desalinating salt water (Concentrated Solar Power plants are the right kind of solar plants that can do that in a cost-effetive way) and creating drinking water, that can be used for irrigation (but would need to be some form of drip-irrigation, since the water price will be high of course and water would be needed to be used as economically as possible) and forming dester like areas into agricultural land.
Other benefits of this are that sand storms, as for instance in China, are already devastating and costs billions of dollars, so there is much money that can be restored by beating deserts and forming them into agricultural land.
The costs for doing that on a global scale might be enormous, but:
- The benefits are also enormous: a renewable energy source and transformation of deserts into farm land
- Military solutions are more expensive, and don't solve the problems, they are a problem inthemselves, they are an anti-solution.
- Investing in such large scale global projects might be very helpfull for the economy, both that of western countries and that of developing countries. It provides work for decades for millions of workers.

Just some suggestions...

 

[John Galaor]

You book is rather simple and optimistic. Let's see other things differently.

I want to answer something about primitive societies.
your point 1)
"1. In primitive societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot."

If by primitive societies you mean "hunter gatherers" I have read something different. Primitive societies do not grow fast, because to get pregnant women had to accumulate a body fat weight of 20 or 30% This fat is like a guarantee of a pregnancy to become successful. The amount of calories of 10 or 15 kg. of fat is the equivalent weight needed to feed the baby in the womb to term.
Then , about half of this fat would would be needed to breastfeed the baby.

Then, on average, a young woman of 13 would need like ten years to accumulate that much fat and get pregnant. Then, after a year or more of breast feeding a baby, the woman needs another then years to accumulate fat again.

About mortality of hunter gatherers is not very high, except for accidents with predators. Epidemics are rare among them, because they live in a low human density environment.Then to the second point, the farmer and herding economies, food is aplenty and
the fertility jumps to the sky.
Then this point 2)
"2. If a society progresses economically and scientifically, we can drop down death rates (like infant mortality, and longer aging), but birth rates are initially still high."
Initially, technical progress is very slow, and the main troubles are caused by excessive population in the same place. As the land for agriculture is limited they soon get trap with an excess of people, forcing some of them to emigrate, or they quarrel for the land in use among them (Civil wars).
In the case of herding people, the lands to graze are also limited, and the potential for the fertility to reach critical limits is also obvious. As it is obvious, the flocks cannot keep growing in numbers for a long time. There are not enough grazing
lands. Then this excess population give way to the first local wars, either between herders and farmers, like in Cain and Abel story, or in general wars with neighbors.
Between the year 1 CE and the year 1,800 the average growth per year has been a modest 0.08% That is less of 1 per a thousand people. As most of the countries were developed into farmers and herders, the availability of food was not a serious limitation for fertility. Most women, except the most destitute, would not have problems to accumulate 10 to 15 kilos of fat in 5 or 6 years. Hunter gatherers can do as well the times of abundant rains.
Then, to low rate of grown can only be explained in a Malthusian way, with wars and epidemics. In this period of time from year 1 to 1,800 the village were rather close and there were a lot cities. Then, war were determinant to lower the population when it was excessive. And the concept excessive is a relative one. In good times population is growing, them come bad times, and harvest began to fail more or less, never 100% If there is too little rain even herders suffer a punishment. If there is too much cold farming have problems and also sheep and goats and cows in winter.
Then, this problems gave rise to marauding of small bands of armed men and just common civil wars.

About your third point.
"3. After suffcient progression, death rates still drop, but also birth rates will drop, and ultimately will stabilize around the same numbers. If you have sufficient access to healthcare and have sufficient economic means, you don't need or want many children, and population grow stabilizes, sometimes will even cause a tendency of a aging population (this seems to trouble now a lot of developed nations - there aren't enough youngsters to provide for the health and services needed by the aging population).

Even the present situation, I mean the XX century social situation, is quite different just to a point. We would have been able to feed a population that had multiplied by seven in just 210 years. This had been possible, not only because we had had very lethal wars, but because we had been burning fossil fuels at a much higher rate than the population was growing.
While the rate of growth in the most developed nations was close to 1% a year, our growth of fuel consumptions was on average 2.5%

While some poor nations, had been growing both, the population and the consumption of fuel, about the same rate. Quite often, the population was growing faster than the consumption of energy. Then, it is in those nations that the most pressure for wars would occur.
Then, the explanation of medical care of children and vaccination is not the main variable for the growth in underdeveloped countries.

About the western nations, tanks to democracy the women wanted to enter into the work force to feel independent of their fathers or husbands. Then to have many children was against this ideal of independence. That is my explanation of the western nations to have less growth. Then the most we work to have a home and a car, and some conspicuous consumption, the lest time we haver to invest in children.

About the problem of an aging population, we have the option of start to care less of them. Then main problem with aging population is conventional wars. We would not have enough people to make a conventional war. We will be forced to use massive means of destruction to save our asses.

As for an economy of frugality with energy, we are doomed to fail. It is very difficult to reverse our means of live, unless dramatic circumstances would force us. Then, when this would happen it will be to late to react and solve the problem.
Then, there is only a few opportunities we have to solve this crisis, of exhaustion of fossil fuels. The fusion of hydrogen and more or less conventional atomic energy. Advanced atomic power plants that would not produce to much radioactive wastes can be possible.

And just for a crisis, we can do something with alternative solar and wind energies. But the main problem is that anything technological it is being done with a lot energy. Anything is done with energy, watering, fertilizing, fighting plagues, building new dams; etc. The food we have in our table is there thanks to a lot of energy spent to put it there. Our clothes, our shoes, our machines, cars, refrigerators, cans of beer, etc. All is made with a lot of artificial energy.

Take out all this energy of the equation and we all are doomed to extermination.
John Galaor
.

 

[brainstorm]

To me, a nation that keeps his population growing on high ratios during several decades is planning some war, or fearing some war. Or their leaders do not care of the future of their nations.

What if the nation was a republic that required the power and choice of how much to reproduce was an inalienable right of the people at the individual level? In that case, people might just be having kids to make big happy families without planning war or fearing it. They might just have faith that things will work out, either because of belief in God or just general faith in technological and economic progress to sustain more people.

 

[heusdens]

What if the nation was a republic that required the power and choice of how much to reproduce was an inalienable right of the people at the individual level? In that case, people might just be having kids to make big happy families without planning war or fearing it. They might just have faith that things will work out, either because of belief in God or just general faith in technological and economic progress to sustain more people.

Big families were not as much a blessing but more of a necessity, since the infant mortality rate was high, and having many children was a way of securing your old day, when there were no pension plans.

Countries which have low infant mortaility and provide pension plans, do not have high birth rates. They are in fact tending towards the opposite, a too aging population.

But then, as the situation in developing countries is reversed, we could be better off importing more young immigrants from those countries. Which would be beneficial for both.

 

[heusdens]

You book is rather simple and optimistic. Let's see other things differently.

I want to answer something about primitive societies.
your point 1)
"1. In primitive societies both birth rates and death rates are high, the population is somewhat stable, does not grow a lot."

If by primitive societies you mean "hunter gatherers" I have read something different. Primitive societies do not grow fast, because to get pregnant women had to accumulate a body fat weight of 20 or 30% This fat is like a guarantee of a pregnancy to become successful. The amount of calories of 10 or 15 kg. of fat is the equivalent weight needed to feed the baby in the womb to term.
Then , about half of this fat would would be needed to breastfeed the baby.

Then, on average, a young woman of 13 would need like ten years to accumulate that much fat and get pregnant. Then, after a year or more of breast feeding a baby, the woman needs another then years to accumulate fat again.

About mortality of hunter gatherers is not very high, except for accidents with predators. Epidemics are rare among them, because they live in a low human density environment.

You are right on this, the birth rates were not high, neither the death rates, although both were volative but on average the population was not much growing. Only after agricultural techniques were used, and there were surplus food, could the population grow.

 

[John Galaor]

In older farming and herding societies, the patriarch of big families had many children to work in the same way as you got slaves, to work on the land, or to tend the flocks. Even children were needed to fight against neighbors who cross borders with flocks to graze into your own lands. Then, all their daughters and daughters in law were enough to take care of him in old age. These societies were stable just to a point, for the marriage rights were restricted to the older son, who inherited all the power. Then sometimes, a second son could also marry as a special privilege but the wealth was all kept under the chief of the family and under the future ruler, the older brother.

But "indefinite growth of human population" looks to me absurd and proper of people that do not understand maths, nor the very limits of technology. Techology is not magic, even if we do not understand it.
John Galaor
.

 

[John Galaor]

The main problem is the "traditional doctrine" that the nations that have more young people to sacrifice in a war has the most probabilities of success. Some nations actually are preparing themselves for this sacrifice, and their growth is not impeded.
Now I remember the times of British Empire, it was against the law promoting birth control, or abortion. Even an alternative to heterosexual sex, like homosexuality was also punished with severe penalties.
Then, contemplating these concepts, still in vigor in many countries, mostly Islamics, we can predict that the solution to this problem would be involuntary, that is Malthusian. It will be solved by means of war and and famine. The present excess of population would push us into a global thermonuclear war.

Them, with some degree of liberalism, liberalism on sexual customs, only a small fraction of couples would do the breeding. And we would have to protect them economically with money to make it workable.
In all the nations that have liberal laws and women working, the growth is not a problem. But even, the Swedish government in some moment was worried by a negative growth, then it introduced protections for women with children and cheap day-care centers, then the Swedish population grew significantly again.

Then, liberal societies would not have a problem with population growth. It is the nations in which the women are slaves of their husbands, that have the most higher rates of growth.

And these traditional customs would not change unless occurs a dramatic upheaval in this planet. Then the future is gloomy.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

To huesdens
<<You are right on this, the birth rates were not high, neither the death rates, although both were volative but on average the population was not much growing. Only after agricultural techniques were used, and there were surplus food, could the population grow. >>

The main question is that with enough food stored, humans can grow much faster than the capacity of the land to sustain the increased in people. Any change for the worse in weather partners, or even the freedom of the new excess of people to breed more people is the perfect recipe for a serious problem.
For we are talking here of an "exponential growth". Then, since many thousand years ago, society had built dams against excessive breeding by barring marriage and sexual freedom to certain social categories like slaves, servants, soldiers, monks, nuns, and poor people in general. This held the growth rates much lower than there were not compulsory limits.

I think that many of the wars in the past, even those of 19 and 20 centuries, were caused by excessive population.

Other troubles, like cyclical economic crisis, are also caused by excessive growth of financial money. Economy cannot have an "exponential growth" for many years. This provokes a partial collapse of the economy.
So far, industrialization has been possible, because we had been consuming increasing amounts of fossil fuels by the year. But then, fossil fuels have announced their own near exhaustion.

All the problems of existence are related to limits.
It seems to me infantile to dream of an uninterrupted prosperity of this planet, perpetually growing, or even aiming to send billions of people to populate distant planets in the Galaxy.
Thirty years ago I was talking about this matter of overpopulation, when a moron told me: "I do not see any problem of excessive population! We still got the Moon and the planets to colonize!" This guy was a genius in Maths. He deserved an A in a Maths exam.
John Galaor
.

 

[ThomasEdison]

I don't buy into the assumption that war, famine or disease have anything but a very minor effect on human population growth. I certainly do not see any of these factors being at all significant towards the future. A World War lasting several years might decimate millions; but the worlds population increase will remain in the millions per month even during wartime.



I agree with some of the posters in this thread that outer space is a terrible idea for quelling Earth's population and completely unfeasable. To be clear: space is not an option, at all.


I also disagree with people who think that the choice to not procreate is any factor as well. It's too complex an issue. Nothing short of draconian measures will change people's choice and that is last century's way of business.
Hoping people will make the correct choice because they are benign or civilized(urban) is simply wishful thinking.

There is also an assumption that as the world becomes more industrialized families will have less children. To a point this may be true however human lifespans are long and the lag time between cultures becoming metropolitan could take several generations and by then we will be swimming in people at a cost to the greater environment (that can not recover in time.)

What I do expect is a future much more crowded, and a continuation of mass extinctions of animal and plant and sealife species. I expect more urbanization but without any cultural shift towards less children. Internationally there will be land grabs and minor turf disputes over fresh water and energy but no significant wars (no death toll numbers in the billions I mean.)


My prediction is that "we made our bed and we have to lie in it now." There will be no catastrophic change to the paradigm of a crowded Earth (like a huge war or plague) and there will be no proactive solution either. The worst cost will be to species diversity, then a long time after that, a cost to the human lifestyle (less space, less choice in food, less energy usage, less material objects, less of everything except childbirth.)

I think that overpopulation is a problem without a solution.
Some problems are unsolvable.
I can't think of a single factor that could ever interfere with a couple's decision to have more children than they (or society) could support.

 

[John Galaor]

Ok, dear ThomasEdison.

As for the part of the past. How can you explain that the population growth estimated for the past, by statisticians, was so low? Less than 0.08% as average in 1800 years?
I can speculate with the idea that only 1/5 of population had the right to marry and breed. But the comparison of growth of las 200 years and the previous growth was about 0.9/0.08= 11.25 then, even if the families had the same average number of children than in the last 200 years, we have to do some calculations. Let's figure the ratio of women that breed today in the planet. It must be about 80% It is is not much different. It must be like (1/5)/(4/5)=1/4
In he the period of 1,800 years, they have to have 1/4 of the present ratio in growth. We are still missing something. 11,25/4= 2.81 That means, that the people of the period of 1,800 years, had to have been growing 2.81 times faster that our accounting says.
Some people, try to defuse my criticism of population growth explaining the alarming present rates of some nations, (2% to 3%), as the result of modern medical care. This looked unbelievable to me. For this growth is occurring in the most poorer countries.
One have to put a question, how many children were dying in the past times, to different illnesses? 1/2.8 = 0.357 or 35.7% It does not happen even in Haiti (7,5%) , or Ethiopia (10.2%), one of the poorest countries in Africa suffering of more hunger.

Look at this link for Haiti, http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ha-haiti/People
It gaves Haiti a growth rate of 2.49% a year.
Then have a look at infant mortality rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate
It counts the dead infants of less than a year per 1000 babies born a year.
In general, it goes from 192 for Angola, to 74 for Haiti this is in the rank 29. Then infant mortality rate of the first ten nations is 192 for Angola to 102 that is Bhutan. But Angola is in the rank 55 for growth with 2.13%
And Bhutan is in the rank 110 with a growth of 2.13%
I mean, we can have some prospections of this statistics.

Then for the period of 1,800 since year 1 CE to 1,800, we can assume an average mortality rate of 15% a year for all the period. That is 150 per thousand children born. Greater than Angola today. Then going back to my accounting. When I said
One have to put a question, how many children were dying in the past times, to different illnesses? 1/2.8 = 0.357 or 35.7%
I was missing a 35.7% of people, then you subtract 15% dying of babies less than a year old, it gives us 35.7-15=20.7 I am missing a 20.7 % of people. This is the sort of people that died in wars and famines.
But if I have reasons to believe that families in the past had more babies, like in poor under-developing countries of today... then I missed quite a lot more people that had died in wars, famines and epidemics.
I am counting that so near as 19 centuries, families in US and Europe had as many as 6 children as average. Today they have barely 2.2 babies. That is, they were growing nearly three times faster. Then, the need to look for the missing population is more intense.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

As a continuation of my previous message.
It seems is more difficult to convince people in most countries of the world to have less children than build a manned spaceship and land in planet Mars.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Sorry, Thomas:
Reply to post #100
You said,
<<I don't buy into the assumption that war, famine or disease have anything but a very minor effect on human population growth.>>

I meant you were referring to Malthus's theory and my former reply was in relation to this idea. Now, I think you were contemplating mostly the XIX and XX Centuries. If you look at the former 200 years Malthus seemed to be in error. The population in this recent period has grown rather high at and average of 0.9% for the whole planet. This outstanding phenomenon has been possible thanks to increasing amounts of fossil fuels consumption. Never, in any previous period in history the men has burned so huge quantities of fuels. And this is quite evident, even for someone not an expert in history like me.

But even, if you were not obfuscated by whole perspective of the planet population, you can check if some revolutionary wars had any thing to do, with a previous exaggerated growth of the population. I am thinking in the Revolution of Mexico in the 20's of the XX century. Also, have a look at wars in countries like Nicaragua, and el Salvador. Look at the statistics of population.
Even in 18 Century, the French Revolution has to have some relation with a famine some previous years earlier. The Napoleonic wars can be explained as a trouble of excess population not solved with a single revolution. Even some of the wars in Europa in the last quarter of 19 century can be explained as the result of a problem with hunger. Even, the growth in population present some troubles when too many people in his twenties found problems to get a job.

If you look at the depression of 1929, you can see that even the I WW was unable to solve the problem of excessive population. That is ten years later, the previous problem of lack of employment was not yet solved. All the surviving soldiers were back at home and most of them had troubles to find a job. This can be a rational explanation for IIWW.
The trouble is a little disguised as an economic crisis. Then the analysis can get a little blurred and the eyes have problems to see clear.

Some crisis can be considered as a problem of excessive financial capital. It has grown so fast and so big, that it cannot find a proper place to win more profits. For the crucial idea behind financial capital is the vocation is has to earn more profits. Then, investing a little part of it in the same country, with the same population, do not give up any yield. This is the main reason for a crisis. Then, a wrong solution before any crisis is to lend money to some people to buy things overvalued. Then, when the crisis blows up, a lot of people is enslaved to the banks to pay back their debt. Then, with the news of the crisis, those that have some earnings have fear to spend most of this money. Then, the commerce has shrunk to a third of the previous level, before the crisis.

All this has the same root, exponential growth. This growth, either of human beings, sheep or even profits, can not last very long. For it can cause serious problems.
John Galaor
.

 

[ikos9lives]

Be careful what you wish for. After decades of struggling to contain the global population explosion that emerged from the healthcare revolution of the 20th century, the world confronts an unfamiliar crisis: rapidly decreasing birthrates and declining life spans that might set back the progress of human development.

Edit: Religious link deleted by mentor

 

[John Galaor]

I do not share this concept of yours. I had paid a close attention to your site in Catholic Education, etc.
Well, you had touch a raw never here. I had commented often about the rate of growth, average growth of the last 200 years. And it is 0.9% a year. Someone had replied to me, this is a "normal growth". It is not.

The population of the planet, between year Zero and the present, had multiplied by 30.43 That means an average growth of 0,17% year. Then 0,9% is not normal.
If it were normal, for such a long period of time, how much would have multiplied the population of the planet?
Let me see, 1.009^2010=66 millions. It would had multiplied by 66 millions, not by 30. And this is quite a huge multiplication.
If that growth during more than two thousand years would had occurred, the present population would had been,
66 millions*230 millions= 1,5 (10^16)
This number can be read 15,180 trillion people. (more than 15 thousand trillion people)
That is more or less the amount squared meters in the solid surface of the planet. it includes all deserts, Siberia, Greenland, and the Antarctic.
It means, we would have 100 people per square meter, or 10 people per square feet. This planet would be pretty crowded.

Then the Holy Spirit of the Catholic Church, it seems that did not studied Maths at school. I advice the Holly Spirit to take a course in Maths.

A totally different question is that due to the scarcity or energy resources, the leaders of the planet would get rather nervous. And perhaps, a global thermonuclear war would erase off the planet all this mess of overpopulation.
Someone had said that the average life-span of an industrial civilization is not more than 200 years. Perhaps this Duncan was too pessimistic, and the life span of a civilization would be as long as 250 years.
Yours,
John Galaor.

 

[ikos9lives]

Can The Entire World Population Fit Within The Boundries of Texas?

LEGEND

1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet

1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)

——————–

World Population = 6,276,000,000 people

State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)

———————-

Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).

This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!

Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.

——————–

State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.

As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!

——————

You can double check my math!

 

[Siv]

I am coming in real late to this discussion ... its a favourite topic of mine, so let me post anyway :)

Overpopulation is a problem ... in pockets. In many rural areas of third world countries for e.g. And it needs to be addressed there.

In the developed world and in most of the urban/educated class of developing countries, its not that much of a problem. Of course countries like India and China have a problem right now, but birth rates have dwindled. Women are getting educated and prefer to limit themselves to 2 children.

The problem is a new one - with dwindling birth rates and the fact that birth rates were higher in the past many generations, we have a lot of old people. Lifespans have increased, but many old people are also hanging on, despite multiple illnesses, because medical care keeps them hanging on. An exit policy sounds cruel (and I personally admit I will never be able to stomach one for my own parents) but needs to be thought of. Else we may have a world where there are mostly old people, esp when are children are older. Or when their children (if they decide to have children) grow up.

 

[John Galaor]

Let me see. I use metric system.
Well, the state of Texas is what I call a peri-desert; a near desert. Only on places not far from the sea there is enough rainfall in a year. En temperatures are horrible during the summer.
Well, a sq mile is about 2.56 million sq. meters.
And not going as far, as Texas, I don't like Texas, we have the seven billion people of the planet nearly can be put into a sq mile.
Let me see. 7,000 million/2,56 million= 2,734 persons per sq.meter, using a sq. mile.
This is a little crowded, but if you take as much as 2,734 sq miles, you have one person per sq. meter.
And this 2,734 sq miles are just (216914/2,734=0,01) you only need the 1% of the surface of Texas to put a person of this planet into a sq. meter.
That is, a person per 10 sq. foot. It is not that bad. You have the rest of planet empty.

The problem is that no many people would like to live in the desert of Texas.

Real state is not the real problem when we speak of actual overpopulation. The main problem is the energy. Not yet for us, not yet at present, but in the near future.
If you look into this link
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate
you will find that the most poor nations of the planet are growing at rate far higher than 2% a year.
# 1 Maldives: 5.566% 2008
# 2 United Arab Emirates: 3.833% 2008
# 3 Liberia: 3.661% 2008
# 4 Uganda: 3.603% 2008
# 5 Kuwait: 3.591% 2008
# 6 Mayotte: 3.465% 2008
# 7 Yemen: 3.46% 2008
# 8 Burundi: 3.443% 2008
# 9 Gaza Strip: 3.422% 2008
# 10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 3.236% 2008
# 11 Ethiopia: 3.212% 2008
# 12 Oman: 3.19% 2008
# 13 Macau: 3.148% 2008
# 14 São Tomé and Príncipe: 3.116% 2008
# 15 Burkina Faso: 3.109% 2008
# 16 Benin: 3.01% 2008
# 17 Madagascar: 3.005% 2008
# 18 Niger: 2.878% 2008
# 19 Western Sahara: 2.868% 2008
# 20 Mauritania: 2.852% 2008
etc.

Then I am fed up of hearing that we are to blame for the hunger in the world.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Overpopulation is a problem, mostly in the most poor countries.
And it is also a problem, because we do not even dare to speak aloud of it.
John Galaor

 

[Hoku]

Many of you are saying that western civilizations don't have a population problem and that, once "developing" cultures industrialize, like us, their problems will dissappear, too. Think about this:

The only reason population becomes a problem is because Earth's resources are finite and it's sustainability fragile. If you don't think that the US, for example, has a problem towards this end, chew on this - "If the current population of all humans lived at US standards, we'd need another 4 Earths to sustain us". http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/nov/11/thisweekssciencequestions1

Fresh water is one of our greatest resources - and it's threatened. You may think Africa and Asia have the population problems, not us, but African's only use about 186 cubic meters of water annually. North Americans use 1,280.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/how-much-human-life-can-planet-earth-sustain/

The first and simplest step in solving this problem is to stop fertility treatments. If a couple can't have a child of their own, they can adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of children needing a loving home in their country alone. In under 40 years, the number of births from fertility treatments exceeds the population of Nevada and Wyoming combined. That's nearing 4,000,000 people on this planet that nature did not intend to be here. Is this worthy of a nobel prize?

 

[John Galaor]

it looks as if we, at present, in developing countries, we have not a problem of overpopulation. But it is an illusion. We have at present problems in some parts of US, with the exhaustion of water. We had been pumping out water on wells till they are now dry. Some other wells, have their water levels deeper from year to year. I am not going to comment the exhaustion of soil, of some minerals.

But the most danger is ahead, when the oil would start to get scarcer and expansive. So far, all the cries of alarm had been premature, and the prediction failed to realized. It is the same concept, as the exhaustion of oil. Since XIX century, many people were crying wolf about oil-wells getting dry. And they were wrong. Then, I can be wrong again this time. But it is only logical that oil would end one day, if not in 40 years, in 60.
This would be dramatic for an economy so spendthrift. Then, we will see at last, that we even are too many mouths in this land. I am not counting on the millions of hungry people that would want to enter into the US and Europe. This it would be a scary moment.
John Galaor
.

 

[mheslep]

Fresh water is one of our greatest resources - and it's threatened. You may think Africa and Asia have the population problems, not us, but African's only use about 186 cubic meters of water annually. North Americans use 1,280.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environ...earth-sustain/

Lets consider what 'threatened' means and where it applies. Fresh water is not threatened in developed countries in the life and death sense that it is in the developing world. The US has a lot of water resource to use, on average, so why not use it? In places where water is less plentiful, like Phoenix, people use much less, roughly 960 cubic meters annually (2151 Mgal/day / 3M people), Tuscon 500 cubic meters / yr / person. Water is not consumed like the energy in fossile fuels; we get it back with some attention to water treatment.

The first and simplest step in solving this problem is to stop fertility treatments.

I'm missing a step in your logic. You chose not to propose eliminating, say, golf courses due to water usage but instead the elimination of more developed world people. Even a brief scan of the thread above shows that the population of many developed countries is already declining, or would be if not for immigration. How do you go from there to saying the population in these countries needs to be decreased faster? Killing off everyone in Nevada won't provide any more water to Africa, though it would likely reduce innovative water treatment technology much needed in Africa with which Nevadans are very familiar.

If a couple can't have a child of their own, they can adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of children needing a loving home in their country alone. In under 40 years, the number of births from fertility treatments exceeds the population of Nevada and Wyoming combined. That's nearing 4,000,000 people on this planet that nature did not intend to be here.

Nature did not intend? By that same logic nature did not intend the modern infant mortality the developed world enjoys of 5-7 deaths in 1000 infants. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Infant-Mortality.html" Then write off 1 in 6 women dying in childbirth. If the logic is to be coolly distilled down to only what is required to reduce the population without regard to any other sentiments, why not propose stripping all single parents of their infants and donating them to two parent families where statistics show they are more likely to be productive members of society?

Is this worthy of a nobel prize?

Were you referring to this year's prize in medicine?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/

 

[Hoku]

Fresh water is not threatened in developed countries in the life and death sense that it is in the developing world. The US has a lot of water resource to use, on average, so why not use it?]

By the time water is threatened for us in the life or death sense, it'll be to late. It may not be "life or death" in the US at the moment, but it is threatened and we need to take seriously where we're headed. Maybe you don't care about people in Africa or Asia, but you can at least look at their water problems as a sign of where we're headed. http://news.discovery.com/earth/groundwater-aquifers-agriculture-irrigation.html Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions, which most of us are, then the conditions in the central US, where most of our food comes from, should be concerning enough. Loosing that single region would be devistating for the entire country. The point that you're missing here is that we are living unsustainably. It's a problem that's catching up with us.

I'm missing a step in your logic. You chose not to propose eliminating, say, golf courses due to water usage but instead the elimination of more developed world people.]

You seem to be fixated on the water problem. Water is only one example of the problems of overpopulation. Our population is overfishing the ocean. Our population needs more cows (thus more greenhouse gasses) than the atmosphere can digest. Our "developed world" is aggrivating climate change in many ways. Not every resource can be recycled but we keep pumping through them anyway and at the expense of deforestation and other habitat loss. Our population is a problem. Western countries may have more water but our overall environmental footprint is enormous - and we've got ugly shoes. There are plenty of innocent children born to "developed world people" that need compassion, love and a chance for a happy family. We don't need fertility interventions and we don't need more people than we are already pumping out.

Nature did not intend? By that same logic nature did not intend the modern infant mortality the developed world enjoys of 5-7 deaths in 1000 infants.

Nature intends life to die. There is a balance that must be maintained and there is something to be said for natural selection. Those that are strong enough to survive keep the evolution of our species strong. That's what we call "selection pressure". Our medical interventions are eliminating these selection pressures and the process of natural selection. Instead, we are breeding for relaxed selection. We are breeding ourselves dependant on technology and unfit for nature. What will this mean for us should anything happen to the technologies that keep our "devolving" species alive?

 

[hamster143]

Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions, which most of us are, then the conditions in the central US, where most of our food comes from, should be concerning enough. Loosing that single region would be devistating for the entire country.

They are overpumping that aquifer because it's cheap and easy. Not because there's no other source of water available. Water is abundant, it's just not in the right place. Mississippi River dumps 300 million acre-feet of fresh water into the ocean every year. Combined with rainfall, one half of that amount would be sufficient to irrigate 75 million acres of corn fields. 75 million acres of corn fiels will produce 300 million tons of corn, which will meet caloric requirements of 1.5 billion people (with a 'b') for a year. Can we do that? Is it within the realm of feasibility to build a channel and some pumps that would take half of the water currently wasted in the ocean, route it to Texas and Iowa, and use it for irrigation? Sure it is. But why bother, when there's such a nice aquifer right here under our feet?

Water is only one example of the problems of overpopulation. Our population is overfishing the ocean. Our population needs more cows (thus more greenhouse gasses) than the atmosphere can digest. Our "developed world" is aggrivating climate change in many ways. Not every resource can be recycled but we keep pumping through them anyway and at the expense of deforestation and other habitat loss. Our population is a problem.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578609&postcount=36

There is a balance that must be maintained and there is something to be said for natural selection. Those that are strong enough to survive keep the evolution of our species strong. That's what we call "selection pressure". Our medical interventions are eliminating these selection pressures and the process of natural selection. Instead, we are breeding for relaxed selection. We are breeding ourselves dependant on technology and unfit for nature.

You're contradicting yourself. We either need natural selection, in which case population controls be damned, let everyone survive and duke it out in a World War Three. Or we don't, in which case we can either impose population controls or try to figure out how to provide decent quality of life to all people.

 

[Evo]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578609&postcount=36

Hamster, the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation.

Extensive areas of the tropical rainforest have been cleared to grow pasture for cattle rearing and to cultivate crops for subsistence and commercial agriculture.

Cattle ranching is an important source of farming activity in many Amazonian countries like Brazil, Colombia and Peru just to name a few. The export to beef to developed countries such as USA, Canada and Japan is extremely profitable and brings in valuable revenue to poor South American countries. As a result, the Amazonian governments encourage cattle ranching by offering financial aid and tax rebates to cattle ranchers. This has resulted in extensive areas of the tropical rainforest being burnt and cut down so that grass and pasture can be grown for cattle.

Timber

The rising demand in Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the USA and Canada for hardwoods has contributed to the extensive damage.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26993/amazon.htm

There are more examples, but I'm busy.

 

[hamster143]

the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation ... This has resulted in extensive areas of the tropical rainforest being burnt and cut down so that grass and pasture can be grown for cattle.

Key word: "pasture".

Pasture is an extremely inefficient way to raise cattle, in terms of land use. Corn fed animals require one tenth of the land area compared to pasture fed cattle. (In Brazil, even less, because they should be able to get two harvests a year consistently.) But when you have dirt cheap forests to cut down and the government does not give a damn about protecting the environment, of course it's easier to take the pasture route.

And, of course, eating beef is an inefficient way to nourish yourself, compared with vegetarian diet. (and even with eating chicken!) Some simple tariffs and taxes on beef would have solved this "problem" quite easily.

Once again, irresponsible development trumps overpopulation.

 

[Evo]

Key word: "pasture".

Pasture is an extremely inefficient way to raise cattle, in terms of land use. Corn fed animals require one tenth of the land area compared to pasture fed cattle. (In Brazil, even less, because they should be able to get two harvests a year consistently.) But when you have dirt cheap forests to cut down and the government does not give a damn about protecting the environment, of course it's easier to take the pasture route.

And, of course, eating beef is an inefficient way to nourish yourself, compared with vegetarian diet. (and even with eating chicken!) Some simple tariffs and taxes on beef would have solved this "problem" quite easily.

Once again, irresponsible development trumps overpopulation.

And where are they going to grow this corn in a tropical rainforest?

 

[hamster143]

And where are they going to grow this corn in a tropical rainforest?

They can cut down one tenth of the forest and use the land to grow corn (or something else more suited to their climate & soil), instead of cutting it all and turning it into grasslands.

Out of curiosity, try to calculate how much land is _really_ needed, using modern agricultural technologies, to allow all 7 billion people on the planet to eat as much beef as Americans. You can find important numbers on page 7 of this document

http://www.whybiotech.com/resources...ryProductionaResponsibleUseofOurResources.pdf

 

[Evo]

They can cut down one tenth of the forest and use the land to grow corn (or something else more suited to their climate & soil), instead of cutting it all and turning it into grasslands.

No, show me the research papers for growing corn the in amazon.

You don't know what the cattle in the amazon are fed do you? You think they are all grass fed, don't you? Come on hamster, you should know to look these things up first.

 

[hamster143]

No, show me the research papers for growing corn the in amazon.

Brazil grew 35 million tons of corn in 2005. Evidently they know how to do that. Also, see my edit above ...

You think they are all grass fed, don't you?

Yeah, they are ... https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/1860.pdf

"Brazil’s production system is based on grass with less than 3 percent in feedlots"