Over-Population

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In another thread,

There are about 6 billion of us right now. I wonder which ones of us are to be viewed as "too many"?

Forgive me for saying so, my dear vison, but I really think that is a dangerous way to look at the question of over-population. Obviously, it is unreasonable to say that one person has a greater right to be on the planet then another. But that doesn't change the fact that we are reaching (or maybe have already reached, or at best or in danger of reaching) the point where the natural resources of the planet simply can not sustain that number of people, at least living the way that we do. I'm no scientist, but I can recognize scientific realities when I see them. Addressing the problem is not a matter of deciding which ones of su are to be viewed as "too many". It is a matter of preventing widespread suffering on an unimaginable scale, and perhaps even a matter of the preservation of the human race itself.

Or so it seems to me.

Sorry to respond in a separate thread, but I didn't want to osgiliate the other thread any more.

[yovargas]

But that doesn't change the fact that we are reaching (or maybe have already reached, or at best or in danger of reaching) the point where the natural resources of the planet simply can not sustain that number of people, at least living the way that we do.

Which natural resources specifically are we talking about?

[Erunáme]

...

[Primula Baggins]

Nonrenewable sources of energy.

[vison]

In another thread,

There are about 6 billion of us right now. I wonder which ones of us are to be viewed as "too many"?

Forgive me for saying so, my dear vison, but I really think that is a dangerous way to look at the question of over-population. Obviously, it is unreasonable to say that one person has a greater right to be on the planet then another. But that doesn't change the fact that we are reaching (or maybe have already reached, or at best or in danger of reaching) the point where the natural resources of the planet simply can not sustain that number of people, at least living the way that we do. I'm no scientist, but I can recognize scientific realities when I see them. Addressing the problem is not a matter of deciding which ones of su are to be viewed as "too many". It is a matter of preventing widespread suffering on an unimaginable scale, and perhaps even a matter of the preservation of the human race itself.

Or so it seems to me.

Sorry to respond in a separate thread, but I didn't want to osgiliate the other thread any more.

Oh, I think there are too many of us, Voronwë. I agree with you.

But those of us that are here aren't about to leave, that's the point I was making. I guess I didn't make it too well.

One of my favourite writers, P. J. O'Rourke, wrote something called "Too many of them, not enough of us". Very interesting.

Who are "us"? Well, there are those who think there are "too many" brown skinned people, or Chinese people. There are those who think there are "too many" Americans burning everything up before anyone else gets a chance. There are those who think that their own species is a fungus infesting the planet and they seem to long for the catastrophe that "cleanses" the Earth.

I dunno. I can't decide whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. As material prosperity spreads around the globe, as women get educated, as new technologies appear -- will we be able to make it past a certain point? Will those educated women do as educated women usually do and have fewer babies?

Some people have what I can only call blind faith in the capacity of us humans to save our bacon at the last second. Technology has always bailed us out before! Run out of oil? Then something better and cheaper will pop up. No land left? Leave Earth and colonize other planets. (That one seems incredibly goofy and impossible.)

As I say, I dunno. I lean more to optimism than pessimism. But one thing is sure: the human population has not reached its maximum yet. I forget when that is hoped (by optimists) to happen.

[Sassafras]

vison wrote: .....But one thing is sure: the human population has not reached its maximum yet. I forget when that is hoped (by optimists) to happen.



Sooner than you might think.

Britain now 'eating the planet
The UK is about to run out of its own natural resources and become dependent on supplies from abroad, a report says.

A study by the New Economics Foundation (Nef) and the Open University says 16 April is the day when the nation goes into "ecological debt" this year.

It warns if annual global consumption levels matched the UK's, it would take 3.1 Earths to meet the demand.

Read the article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4897252.stm

[Jnyusa]

It warns if annual global consumption levels matched the UK's, it would take 3.1 Earths to meet the demand.

I've read that if we tried to match US consumption globally, we'd need 7 planets to do it.

Oink, oink.

Jn

[Erunáme]

...

[vison]

China is already running out of land and is having a hard time growing food to feed their population. Many people in rural areas are dealing with hunger everyday. People can't fish in many rivers because of horrid pollution from factories. I found out many appalling things from the program China Rises on Discovery Times.

China now consumes more meat than the US. Huge tracts of land are being cleared in South America to grow soybeans to sell to China so the Chinese can feed the soybeans to pigs and cows that are being raised for meat.

One could go on and on, but one won't.

[Ellienor]

Anyone read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond? (The guy who brought you "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about the origin of Western domination)

It's a very interesting book. It examines the collapse of several societies (such as Easter island, Anasazi, Maya, Viking Greenland), and extrapolates the lessons of these collapses to our times. And no, he isn't a doom and gloom-er. He also analyzes societies that haven't collapsed to find the lessons of success. (Japan, Dominican Republic, etc). He extrapolates both lessons from the collapses and lessons from the successes to modern society.

And yes, one of the things we learn is that if the whole planet converted to first world standard of living, we will all be in deep doo-doo.

One of the biggest lessons is that leadership that recognizes unsustainable resource depletion and acts to reverse it is the biggest factor in avoiding collapses. I'd say our current political regime in the U.S. is heading us for big trouble if Diamond's analysis is correct.

[MithLuin]

Yes, we can't all live that way. Many people starve to death every year (mostly in third world countries). Famine, disease and war tend to level out unsustainable population growth .

Obviously, we should be aware of this. But most Americans waste so much food, water (and other resources) that it seems odd that they are so concerned about population growth. We are hardly as crowded or hard up as India, for instance! I think that being scared about over-population should be accompanied by serious attempts to simplify lifestyles (at least stop wasting stuff!) Having one kid solves little if you then use up 5 kids-worth of resources on said child .

China has had measures in effect for some time to limit its population growth. I don't know how successful they are, but I do think it has been curbed. But then, this can create social problems - a top-heavy population, in which the aging far outnumber the young, who then have to support them. (Not unlike what Americans face with the baby-boomers reaching retirement age [and hence Social Security]) Or, a dearth of females, because families decided that if they could only have one child, they'd like a male, please.

Before we run out of food, we will run out of water. Water will become the commodity that we all fight over (and already has, in many areas). We can either be responsible about it, or let 'nature' even the playing field for us, by killing off those we cannot support.

[Erunáme]

...

[yovargas]

He also analyzes societies that haven't collapsed to find the lessons of success. (Japan, Dominican Republic, etc).

Dominican Republic, really? How odd. I'm from the Dominican Republic and my little country doesn't exactly have a great reputation, to my knowledge. Besides being thoroughly third-world, the government is thoroughly corrupt and greedy and has been my entire lifetime, at least.

[Alatar]

I also refuse to have more than two children. With population what it is, I think it would be best if people not have more than two children...one for each parent which will keep population growth under control. There was a program on TLC about a family that has something like 16 kids and they show no signs of stopping. That enrages me as they use up far too much resources. It's just wrong and selfish in my humble opinion.

Well, gee. I'm a 4th child so by your calculations I shouldn't exist. Neither should my third child. So lets consider your hypothesis. Since Lady Aoife was not "planned", should I have had her aborted to ensure that she used up no "resources"? Or should I have checked the local hospital that day to see if any baby died unexpectedly so I could keep her without feeling guilty? Perhaps if I split the food I'm feeding the older two so that we could feed three from it, since obviously we're perfect and do not waste anything in our house. Make sure she only wears hand-me-downs? Maybe if one of my other kids died, then I could start buying her stuff of her own.

Sorry, but THIS enrages me. Feel free to moralise for yourelf and Iavas, but allow me to raise my family according to my beliefs without telling me they are wrong and selfish (in your humble opinion).

[Ellienor]

Dominican Republic, really? How odd. I'm from the Dominican Republic and my little country doesn't exactly have a great reputation, to my knowledge. Besides being thoroughly third-world, the government is thoroughly corrupt and greedy and has been my entire lifetime, at least.

Yovargas, "Collapse" discusses the dictator that your former country suffered under, but one thing that the dictator (sorry, forgot his name ) did is he preserved the forests. Logging all of one's forests and losing that resource alters rainfall patterns, removes wood (a source of heat, building materials, and ability to work metal, etc), and was a major contributor to a number of collapses.

Edit--the resource consumption per child can vary significantly. Having many children when you are poor in China affects the world far less than having 16 children in the U.S.

[Erunáme]

...

[Alatar]

Well my Father came from a family of 14. Was that wrong too?

[Erunáme]

...

[Alatar]

That would be true if all countries were overpopulated. Ireland has a population of about 4 million. Prior to the famine it was at one time estimated at 11 million. Ireland can more than support 4 million people, or indeed double that. Why should we hold ourselves to American standards?

[Ellienor]

Alatar, one question is whether the population of Ireland is self sufficient and isn't leading to a depletion of resources. Can Ireland completely self provide in terms of lumber, food, energy, etc? I'm sure they can grow enough food, but how much reliance is there on mechanized agriculture (depending on oil and other vanishing resources). Ireland may simply be "exporting" their resource depletion, i.e., depleting somebody else's resource and not their own.

For example, Japan is very good at preserving its forests, but it depends on lumber imports from other countries that aren't preserving their forests, so they are "exporting" their resource depletion. So, they are still depleting resources despite their own forestry preservation.

My dad was one of 10 children (he was born in Ireland) and I'm very glad he was born, for obvious reasons. However, that doesn't make it the best plan for the planet at large.