Overpopulation

[Conservationist]

Every minute, 150 babies are born into the world. That means about 220,000 new human beings a day--80 million a year who need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and employed. 9 out of 10 are born in the third world.

The astonishing Figures come from the 1987 report of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities --State of World Population.

There is no trace of population pressure producing dynamic agricultural innovations in the rice paddies of the Ganges basin, the grain fields of the Nile delta or in the inter-Andean valleys of South America, it says. No evidence, either, in the well-documented history of the populations of England and France. And the Mayan civilization, it is recalled, "fell victim to population pressure' and was extinguished.

Population growth also threatens plants, animals and forests.

10 people billion by the year 2087

This could well do us in. When we eat all the food and take up all the land, what's left but war? We have no plan in place for this, and unless each one of us earns enough to feed nine others in the third world, most are going to be starving. How do we stop growing? Humanity needs to diet!

 

[alphieb]

What????? We can't control third world countries. We have enough in our own court as it is. Perhaps, you should go on a mission yourself and introduce birth control to them.

As for over population here, it is beneficial to our economy. That statement is self explanatory.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Are you kidding me? We just produce more food. You should look into Norman Borlaug and the many countries in which he has quadrupled their food output. Places like mexico, india, and the some of the worst of developing nations.

We have not "used up all the land."

 

[MrFungus420]

Overpopulation? Laughable.

6.5 billion people put in the United States with an area of about 3.7 million square miles would be about 1,757 people per square mile. A square mile is 27,878,400 square feet. That's about 15,867 square feet per person, or a little under 1/3 acre per person.

Now, the planet's land area is about 57.5 million square miles, so that means that the entire population could fit into the United States fairly comfortably and leave about 53.8 million square miles totally uninhabited. That would be about 94% of the planets land area totally uninhabited.

If we were to "cram" them in a little tighter, say divided into families of four each on an acre, then that would mean that about 25% of the United States would also be uninhabited. Now we're up to over 95% of the planet's land area uninhabited.

In other words, if we have people living four to an acre, the entire population of the planet would fit on less than 5% of the planet's land area.

So, how is that overpopulation?

 

[Volker]

Heavy growing populations cause serious problems in parts of the world. An overuse of natural resources can lead to a situation where the ecological systems can not reproduce anymore and the output sinks, while the population is still growing.

This can happen with firewood and fish for instance.

Niger is an example of a country where we have seen these problems. There has been progress in restoring vegetation in the last 20 years, the population growth rate is 2.9% at this time.

 

[Dezaad]

Overpopulation? Laughable.

6.5 billion people put in the United States with an area of about 3.7 million square miles would be about 1,757 people per square mile. A square mile is 27,878,400 square feet. That's about 15,867 square feet per person, or a little under 1/3 acre per person.

Now, the planet's land area is about 57.5 million square miles, so that means that the entire population could fit into the United States fairly comfortably and leave about 53.8 million square miles totally uninhabited. That would be about 94% of the planets land area totally uninhabited.

Are you making the claim that the only resources it takes to decently support a single human being is 1/3 an acre of land?

Humans:
Use up clean water by polluting it
Use up clean air by polluting it
Use up non-renewable energy resources
Use up other non-renewable resources
Use up land by producing waste

I could go on if I wanted to take mre time.

Do you really think that all of this happens with the resources on the equivalent of 1/3 an acre of land for each human in the U.S.?

 

[ashurbanipal]

As for over population here, it is beneficial to our economy. That statement is self explanatory.

No it isn't. It appears false to me.

Are you kidding me? We just produce more food. You should look into Norman Borlaug and the many countries in which he has quadrupled their food output. Places like mexico, india, and the some of the worst of developing nations.

See both of the following and draw the obvious conclusion:

Biological Nitrogen Fixation:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/fleay/WA_GasFutureRevised.pdf

To summarize: The green revolution was not primarily acheived through crop genetics, though that did play a part. It was primarily achieved by introducing industrial agriculture to the third world. As natural gas, coal stocks, and oil decline, chemical fertilizer stocks will also decline, and we will have to go back to pre-industrial agriculture, which is at most capable of supporting 2 billion people worldwide.

6.5 billion people put in the United States with an area of about 3.7 million square miles would be about 1,757 people per square mile. A square mile is 27,878,400 square feet. That's about 15,867 square feet per person, or a little under 1/3 acre per person.

It's possible, though difficult, to feed one person with one acre of land. I've never heard of anyone successfully doing it with less--more often it's estimated to require between 3 and 5 acres.

Now, the planet's land area is about 57.5 million square miles, so that means that the entire population could fit into the United States fairly comfortably and leave about 53.8 million square miles totally uninhabited. That would be about 94% of the planets land area totally uninhabited.

Most land is not arable. There are generally thought to be about 15 billion acres of arable land worldwide, though that area is declining. See:

Redefining Progress - Ecological Footprint

Then, go look at pre-industrial yields per acre. You can find that information in this document:

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/96120/trackrec2003.pdf

It's easy to see that since industrial agriculture began to be widespread, crop yields have increased substantially. This is mainly due to high inputs of fossil fuels. As fossil fuels become more scarce, crop yields will decline, due to both a lack of chemical fertilizers and a deteriorating transport infrastructure.

So, how is that overpopulation?

Perhaps now the answer is obvious.

 

[jfuh]

Overpopulation? Laughable.

6.5 billion people put in the United States with an area of about 3.7 million square miles would be about 1,757 people per square mile. A square mile is 27,878,400 square feet. That's about 15,867 square feet per person, or a little under 1/3 acre per person.

Now, the planet's land area is about 57.5 million square miles, so that means that the entire population could fit into the United States fairly comfortably and leave about 53.8 million square miles totally uninhabited. That would be about 94% of the planets land area totally uninhabited.

If we were to "cram" them in a little tighter, say divided into families of four each on an acre, then that would mean that about 25% of the United States would also be uninhabited. Now we're up to over 95% of the planet's land area uninhabited.

In other words, if we have people living four to an acre, the entire population of the planet would fit on less than 5% of the planet's land area.

So, how is that overpopulation?

The argument from the OP aside. Yes there is over population as it is already.
Why?
Food: The total amount of arable land vs the need of the total population in the world. One value is fixed the over is an ever changing variable. Hence there is an upper limit.

Fresh water: Again, not enough fresh water to supply this ever increasing population without devastating ecological and environmental effects.

Energy: Were everyone in the world to live the way we American's do, there's simply not enough energy with current methods of production.

Jobs: The current scheme of jobs is rich countries are dependent on poor countries. However if Japan is to serve as any model it's proof that this scheme fails when you reach a saturation point and there is no longer cheap high level labor available. Then who's going to be the ones to clean, cook, sweep and so on? Automation and robotics? If that is the case then what is the use of a large growing population?

Resource acquisition grows linearly as we come up with new and more efficient methods of cultivation and recycling, however population grows exponentially. This is the basic argument by Thomas Malthus.

 

[Volker]

There is a lot of potential in agricultural production and distribution. I have no doubt we could feed, house and educate much more people than living on earth today if everything was organized better.

In this world we have, production and distribution is not adjusted to population growth in all areas. Often the people there do not have the means to invest for a higher output.

Even though the real problems are of economical nature and solvable, heavy population growth leads to problems in some areas.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This could well do us in. When we eat all the food and take up all the land, what's left but war?

What's wrong with war? It is how our species has settled conflict over territory and resources, and population pressures, for as long as our species has existed.

 

[ashurbanipal]

What's wrong with war? It is how our species has settled conflict over territory and resources, and population pressures, for as long as our species has existed.

There are distinct differences in how we conduct war today in comparison to how we conducted it, say, 5 centuries ago or earlier. War today is much more destructive not only to people, but also to other species.

And of course this begs the question of just whether that's what we should have been doing. I think probably not.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There are distinct differences in how we conduct war today in comparison to how we conducted it, say, 5 centuries ago or earlier. War today is much more destructive not only to people, but also to other species.

This is true. It seems that every attempt to make war safer-- or make it safer for us to wage war-- has only made it more terrible.

However, it seems to me that almost everyone who is attempting to "make the world a better place" is trying to do so by ignoring-- or flatly denying-- the kind of animal that man is. They are trying to end war, or even end conflict, without recognizing that our violence and anger are as much our nature-- as much our birthright-- as our love and compassion.

People approach the issue of overpopulation as though the inevitable wars it would cause are the worst consequence, as opposed to the natural-- and I would say preferable-- fashion for this kind of problem to be worked out. Our appetites cannot destroy the planet; the worst thing we need to fear is not famine, but the stagnation and death that would be imposed upon us in order to prevent it.

 

[MrFungus420]

Are you making the claim that the only resources it takes to decently support a single human being is 1/3 an acre of land?

No, I never claimed that, nor meant to imply it.

All that it was intended was to show that the entire human population could be put on less than 5% of the land area and show how "crowded" it would be.

My apologies if I gave the impression that I was making any claims of the feasibility of doing so.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is true. It seems that every attempt to make war safer-- or make it safer for us to wage war-- has only made it more terrible.

This is true, but there have been plenty more attempts at making it more deadly.

However, it seems to me that almost everyone who is attempting to "make the world a better place" is trying to do so by ignoring-- or flatly denying-- the kind of animal that man is. They are trying to end war, or even end conflict, without recognizing that our violence and anger are as much our nature-- as much our birthright-- as our love and compassion.

1) I agree that a lot of people do not understand the nature of conflict. Many avoid it rather than see it as the opportunity it is. We're finding that the very earliest civilizations probably understood this, and encouraged non-lethal confrontation as a means of working things out. A lot of people today, especially in the west, have so supressed all emotion that pathologies result.

2) There are a number of instances of societies where conflict never becomes widespread or even violent. Those have all apparently been swallowed by those that are violent as a whole (for obvious reasons)--but those examples nevertheless suggest to me that there are other ways of going about administering human affairs that don't require war.

People approach the issue of overpopulation as though the inevitable wars it would cause are the worst consequence, as opposed to the natural-- and I would say preferable-- fashion for this kind of problem to be worked out.

I've always thought that of the ways to die, dying peacefully in one's sleep is the best way. But right after that, dying fighting would be best, far preferable to dying of starvation, cancer, car crash, heart attack, etc. etc.

But this isn't really the issue. Very few who have seen war up close and personal really want another one. It would be vastly better to stem the population through some implementation of birth control, rather than to kill everyone later.

Our appetites cannot destroy the planet; the worst thing we need to fear is not famine, but the stagnation and death that would be imposed upon us in order to prevent it.

If you mean that we cannot destroy the sphere that is orbiting the sun at one A.U., I agree. But I believe we do have the means to eradicate all life on the planet except maybe for microbes that live deep in the fissures of the ocean, and other such isolated pockets. Even if that is not a likely enough outcome, the damage caused to the ecosphere by any widespread war carried out today would be disastrous.

That said, I am of the opinion that there's no stopping that now.