Over population

[LikelyToBreak]

Something which has bothered me since the '60's, is how little attention is given to the over population of the world.  It also bothers me how little action is being taken to stop over population.  While a few countries 20 in about 200, have no or even a negative growth rate, most of the world is growing fast.  

It is my understanding that the US would not be growing as fast as we are, if it wasn't for emigrants.  So, while we may be doing better than many countries, we are still growing in population.  Meaning the growth in population in other countries, effects the US population.  

There are about 7.68 billion acres of arable land on the planet.

According to: //http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

The current population of the world is about 7.1 billion people and growing. See: //http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Meaning soon there will be less than one arable acre of land for everyone in the world.  

Peak oil is almost upon us, much of the world's peoples have no safe clean water supply, and the ocean's are beginning to be be fished out, and I could go on, but I'm sure you can think of some of your own examples of why over population is bad.

My question is, should the US government be doing more to help stop the unhindered population growth?  Not only in the US, but in the world in general.

I realize that to oppose the religious factions in the US is pretty much touching the third rail in politics, but shouldn't someone be risking their political careers to bring this problem to the fore front where it should be?  I realize if a politician proposes taking steps to alleviate population growth, he or she is labeled as an atheistic, racist, commie bastard.  But, shouldn't some politician have the courage to point out the obvious?  That the consequences of doing nothing about this are worse than losing a career.

Personally, I think the human race is bound for failure.  We will continue to breed like lemmings and having the means of eradicating ourselves when things get too bad, we will do so.  Still, it would be refreshing to hear a politician, maybe a lame duck President for instance, who would put politics aside and tell the world what our biggest problem really is.  Then try and do something about it.

Recognizing that politicians will probably never actually say or do anything about this problem, are there things we can do to help stop runaway population growth?  I am being a bit hypocritical on this subject, as I do have one too many offspring, but is there anything else we can do to help make a difference?

[Sal1981]

Mackerel is actually on a steep increase in the North Atlantic, there's so much mackerel in the ocean actually,  that it's consuming the resources of other fish, particularly along the Norwegian coast - all the while EU in their dumbfuckery want to limit fishing quotas.

[Icarus]

The human population curve is S-shaped not exponential. We're actually about to cap off where births = deaths (approx). This link goes into standard population curves, I'll try to find the one on human population that I've seen before (I was shown it years ago in a biology course that went into population dynamics).

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... h-84225544

This one goes into the theory of future population growth: http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/worldpop.htm

[stromboli]

I have seen studies that the population will cap at around 10 billion. As it stands right now, we can feed that many people. Ever evolving methods of farming (up to this point) have increased crop yield and production of meat and produce sufficient to feed the human population. In developed countries, we throw away enough food to feed small 3rd world countries.....

.......up till now. what is not predictable are the long term effects of pollutants, toxic methods of crop management, runoff from super sized hog farms, global warming and a host of other factors that could alter the picture. Food producers and related industries (Monsanto comes to mind) are global conglomerates that yield enormous power. There is not to my knowledge, other than the UN World Food Programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme

.....that has any oversight over the entire world food picture. My personal opinion is that if there were a common sense program on an international level, population would almost be a non factor in feeding everyone. Food shortages in countries are more often based on political situations, wars and so on, rather than the availability of food.

[LikelyToBreak]

Sal1981 wrote:

Mackerel is actually on a steep increase in the North Atlantic, there's so much mackerel in the ocean actually, that it's consuming the resources of other fish, particularly along the Norwegian coast - all the while EU in their dumbfuckery want to limit fishing quotas.

The mackerel are probably doing well because of the overfishing of their predator fish.  Just my guess.  But, the point being, there are overall less food fish available for humans to eat.  Of course, we can start eating more jellyfish.  I understand they are doing well.  But, having eaten it before, I don't want to have to eat it again.

Anyway, governments don't listen to biologists much, which is why while they should increase the number of mackerel allowed to be taken, they decide to limit everything everywhere.  This makes sense, as most politicians probably can't tell the difference between a mackerel and a swordfish.

Icarus wrote in part:

The human population curve is S-shaped not exponential. We're actually about to cap off where births = deaths (approx). This link goes into standard population curves, I'll try to find the one on human population that I've seen before (I was shown it years ago in a biology course that went into population dynamics).

If you look in to the "S-shaped" populations of different species, you will notice the higher the climb, the steeper the dip tends to be.  Meaning while the earth could easily support about a billion people, by going over this we are looking at dipping below that when the conditions are such that the larger population can no longer be supported.  So the dip in the human race may be to below 100 million.  Meaning something will have to happen to the 7 billion excess people we have here now.

Also, lemmings for example, don't have the means to kill off billions of their fellows.  Humans do have those means.  We are currently keeping ahead of the die-off with the use of petroleum, but as I mentioned before, we are about to get to peak oil.  Meaning less oil at higher prices, meaning less used for food production.  

When those in government are faced with millions of hungry people what happens?  They deflect the cause away from themselves on to somebody else.  Which usually means some type of genocide is then committed.  Some governments have the means to start nuclear annihilation.  Other governments have biological means of attacking others.  Either means could mean a quick reduction in the human population.

[Icarus]

If you look in to the "S-shaped" populations of different species, you will notice the higher the climb, the steeper the dip tends to be.  Meaning while the earth could easily support about a billion people, by going over this we are looking at dipping below that when the conditions are such that the larger population can no longer be supported.  So the dip in the human race may be to below 100 million.  Meaning something will have to happen to the 7 billion excess people we have here now.

Also, lemmings for example, don't have the means to kill off billions of their fellows.  Humans do have those means.  We are currently keeping ahead of the die-off with the use of petroleum, but as I mentioned before, we are about to get to peak oil.  Meaning less oil at higher prices, meaning less used for food production.  

When those in government are faced with millions of hungry people what happens?  They deflect the cause away from themselves on to somebody else.  Which usually means some type of genocide is then committed.  Some governments have the means to start nuclear annihilation.  Other governments have biological means of attacking others.  Either means could mean a quick reduction in the human population.

What dip? The theoretical curve caps off at 9.5 billion (ish). The food issue is why we need to be supporting research on GM products instead of fearing it.

[LikelyToBreak]

Stromboli wrote in part:

.....that has any oversight over the entire world food picture. My personal opinion is that if there were a common sense program on an international level, population would almost be a non factor in feeding everyone. Food shortages in countries are more often based on political situations, wars and so on, rather than the availability of food.

While I agree with what you said above, I have a slight disagreement with the above quoted statements.  You are correct, but you have to consider the consequences of feeding those people who are being denied food for political reasons and peak oil production.  When we feed people who cannot produce enough food themselves, they continue to procreate.  Meaning they need more food from elsewhere to survive, simply because there are more of them to feed.  What happens to them, when there is no fuel to get the food to them from elsewhere?  Or food production drops off for any reason.

The French Revolution was said to have been started by poor weather causing poor crop yields.  What happens when there are bad crop years all around the globe?  Volcanoes can cause bad weather for crops.  Crop diseases, like the potato blight in Ireland in the mid 1800's, could happen world wide with more GM seeds being used.  Global warming will cause some land to be in-arable.  Rising populations also use up more arable land.

What I am trying to get at, is that we are living on a razor's edge.  Even without the politicians and warlords making life hard for us.  And God knows, they will never use common sense if their personal power is at stake.

[stromboli]

Right. This debate raged back in the 70's, largely because of Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb the problem with the book was that the predictions he made didn't happen. He was essentially predicting worldwide famine in the short term. His overall thesis might be relevant, but the results didn't back it. The problem with any predictions concerning population vis a vis food resources can't take in every scientific advancement that increases crop yield. Genetic engineering, Golden Rice, Golden Wheat and other achievements have served to provide an abundance of crops that did not previously exist.

That being said, I would tend to agree with you in the long term. Even if we are able to feed 10 billion based on known resources, the possibility of calamities that would create shortages or worse are very real. Increased storms or drought could seriously alter crop yields, loss of water resources in desert environments and a host of other possibilities. I don't know that we are on the razors edge yet, but the potential is certainly there.

[Colanth]

1) Immigration doesn't change the planetary population, so it's irrelevant (unless people move here from other planets).

2) The Bible tells us to be fruitful and multiply, and the Constitution tells us that we can't stop people from being Christians, so ... we get morons like adherents of Providentialism.

Just another reason that religion should be stopped, but that's not really possible, unless the survivors are too busy surviving to worry about gods.

[LikelyToBreak]

Sorry,  I missed Icarus's response.  As to the dip I am referring to, this is what happens when lemmings get too populous.


This is what I am thinking will happen to humans, when we reach peak oil and then something else happens before we can adjust.

Stromboli wrote in part:

Right. This debate raged back in the 70's, largely because of Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb the problem with the book was that the predictions he made didn't happen. He was essentially predicting worldwide famine in the short term. His overall thesis might be relevant, but the results didn't back it.

That is the book which woke me up to the problem.  But, to be honest, Ehrlich wasn't the first to predict dire consequences to over population.  Thomas Robert Malthus also made predictions which may feel were not held up due to improvements in agriculture and politics.  Until England became more liberal and started looking out more for the poor, the poor lived in horrendous conditions.  After WWI, the English government decided there needed to be change, primarily because they found there were not enough poor people healthy enough to draft into the military during the war.  Which kind of backed up Malthus, but then again the improvements.

The problem I see, is that we can't count on scientific improvements.  They may happen, they may not.  If they don't, then we can count on being like the lemmings.  I recognize not everyone sees us as standing on a razor's edge.  You may be right.  I can just think of too many things which can happen to make so we are on a razor's edge.

I may be a little to idealistic, but I would like a society where everyone can achieve their full potential.  Even if that potential is just flipping burgers and living in a one room apartment.  At least that is better than living on the streets, wondering where your next meal is coming from.  Which for many in today's world is a reality.  People cannot reach their full potential if they are just living lives of subsistence.  Even if we do figure out a way to feed the 10 billion, what type of lives will 9.9 billion of them have?

[Icarus]

Sorry,  I missed Icarus's response.  As to the dip I am referring to, this is what happens when lemmings get too populous.
[ Image ]

This is what I am thinking will happen to humans, when we reach peak oil and then something else happens before we can adjust.

It won't, we aren't like lemmings in that we do have the means to feed ourselves. People just don't like scientific advancements being the only solution to the food problem (any many other issues). We have a ton of population curves, for example:



This is the 'curve' for bacterial colonies, we don't apply it to humans because we're not bacteria.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I say start WWIII and be done with pesky humans and their nasty habits...except me. I'm important..the rest of you are not.
Once I rule the earth things are gonna be different around here I tell ya!

[LikelyToBreak]

Icarus wrote in part:

It won't, we aren't like lemmings in that we do have the means to feed ourselves. People just don't like scientific advancements being the only solution to the food problem (any many other issues).

You are right.  I don't like counting on scientific advancements being the only solution.  To me, it is like buying a new car you can't afford, counting on a raise which you may or may not get.  

That and I don't trust the politicos at all.  They are not as smart as most people think.  But, they are as self-centered as most people think.

I recognize we are not lemmings or bacteria, but we are in unprecedented times.  Though we do know from history, when civilizations lacked resources they desired, they made war on those who had those resources.  This has been happening for 10,000 years.  Why would it be different now?  Sure, we can imagine a world where common sense prevailed, as Stromboli laments it doesn't.  But, I don't see the political situation changing overall for the better.

[LikelyToBreak]

Colanth wrote in part:

1) Immigration doesn't change the planetary population, so it's irrelevant (unless people move here from other planets).

Actually it does.  When people move from an area with not enough food, they try to not create more mouths to feed.  When they get somewhere with plenty of everything, they reproduce more.  Even if they don't reproduce more, they and their offspring tend to live longer.  How much more they reproduce and how much longer they live, is open to interpretation, but it is a factor.  Even if it isn't PC to say so.

I agree with the rest of what Colanth wrote.  And I am advocating constitutional change to limit the numbers offspring someone can have.  Or at least, limit the tax write-offs and other benefits those with a dozen kids get.

AllPurposeAtheist wrote in part:

I say start WWIII and be done with pesky humans and their nasty habits...

This I can sometimes really relate to.  But, I disagree with the rest.  It should be me being left and in charge.  I promise I'll rule gently with an iron fist.

[gomtuu77]

Something which has bothered me since the '60's, is how little attention is given to the over population of the world.  It also bothers me how little action is being taken to stop over population.  While a few countries 20 in about 200, have no or even a negative growth rate, most of the world is growing fast.  

It is my understanding that the US would not be growing as fast as we are, if it wasn't for emigrants.  So, while we may be doing better than many countries, we are still growing in population.  Meaning the growth in population in other countries, effects the US population.  

There are about 7.68 billion acres of arable land on the planet.

According to: //http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm

The current population of the world is about 7.1 billion people and growing. See: //http://www.census.gov/popclock/
Meaning soon there will be less than one arable acre of land for everyone in the world.  

Peak oil is almost upon us, much of the world's peoples have no safe clean water supply, and the ocean's are beginning to be be fished out, and I could go on, but I'm sure you can think of some of your own examples of why over population is bad.

My question is, should the US government be doing more to help stop the unhindered population growth?  Not only in the US, but in the world in general.

I realize that to oppose the religious factions in the US is pretty much touching the third rail in politics, but shouldn't someone be risking their political careers to bring this problem to the fore front where it should be?  I realize if a politician proposes taking steps to alleviate population growth, he or she is labeled as an atheistic, racist, commie bastard.  But, shouldn't some politician have the courage to point out the obvious?  That the consequences of doing nothing about this are worse than losing a career.

Personally, I think the human race is bound for failure.  We will continue to breed like lemmings and having the means of eradicating ourselves when things get too bad, we will do so.  Still, it would be refreshing to hear a politician, maybe a lame duck President for instance, who would put politics aside and tell the world what our biggest problem really is.  Then try and do something about it.

Recognizing that politicians will probably never actually say or do anything about this problem, are there things we can do to help stop runaway population growth?  I am being a bit hypocritical on this subject, as I do have one too many offspring, but is there anything else we can do to help make a difference?

I think the problem has been misidentified.  The basic tension has to do with the number of people vs. the amount or level of resources both renewable and non-renewable necessary to sustain that number of people.  In that context, if the number of people is identified as the problem, then you essentially invite society to begin looking at human life as something akin to a bug infestation.  Fostering this view of human life is likely to be unhelpful at the very least.  However, if you identify the problem as a lack of both renewable and non-renewable resources, then you invite innovative solutions that likely include conservation, new technology, space exploration, etc...  One is clearly superior to the other.