Are we really overpopulated?

Sorry, I'm late. I forgot I had an account here. This is one of those questions that have an opposite or similar question alike.

Like saying are we too incapable of keeping up with the fads? Or are the fads being created too fast? I know, It was an ugly example, but I'm sure you get the picture.

I'd like to say that if we are overpopulated, it would be because we don't know how to 'manage our land and resource' better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pronatalist.. shut up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with the term "overpopulation" is that it almost never includes a discussion of regions or areas ...mostly only talking in terms of land area, whether it's productive land or not.

I think we can all agree that the Sahara Desert has a sparse population. Ditto for, perhaps, Montana or Nevada.

That being said, I think we can all agree that places like Bangladesh are grossly OVER-populated. I would even go so far as to say that cities like New York and Los Angeles and London are over-populated.

I also think that we can all agree that if we take half of the population of Bangladesh and move them to the Sahara Desert, then perhaps neither place would be over-populated. But, ahh, we can't really do that, can we? And we all know that Montana nor Nevada would accept all those people.

So, see, we are over-populated ...but only in terms of region or area. But the kicker comes when we try to divide up all the land for all the people. Essentially it just don't work.

Therefore, we, as a people, are overpopulated. But as a planet, we are not over-populated. So it's a matter of terminology, not population and land area.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are over-populated in the sense that the natural environment can no longer sustain us.
In fact, it is collapsing under the weight of our presence.

 

No, see you're still thinking globally, and what you're saying is not only wrong, it's absolutely wrong. Globally, we can cut down the Amazon forests and grow enough food to feed the entire globe without a single problem.

But notice all the consequences of doing something like that? See, the problem can't be stated in such global terms ...and if you do, you'll invariably be wrong.

Think regional, and you'll quickly see what over-population really means.

Baron Max

 

Natural environment Baron, natural.
It hasn't been able to sustain us for a long time. Now it's finally collapsing.

 

How odd to say something like that! If we'd never been allowed to cut down a few trees to plant a garden, then we wouldn't even be here discussing this issue. "Natural"? Woudln't that also prohibit things like plowing the "natural" land ...or even to plant something "unnatural" in the soil?

Try thinking a little bit next time ....BEFORE.... you post.

Baron Max

 

A lot less of us in any case, but you're probably right.

Yes, as opposed to man-made.

Yep.

 

o·ver·pop·u·la·tion
n. Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/over population

Clearly we are dealing with an overpopulation of humans on this planet.
I suggest action should be taken in the same spirit as is done with other animal species that are overcrowding their environment.
Remember the horses ?

 

Read the definition again ...."...of an area...."

"...on this planet..."? Notice how you've taken the definition, which you supplied, then fucked it up so as to include the entire planet? Why did you do that?

I agree with you. But that doesn't mean that I can't argue the contrary position on this matter. And to do so often helps me see things in a different perspective. Try it sometime, and hopefully do it before you post something.

Baron Max

 

this is a statement of blind faith. No proof exists of such a contention nor was any offered. Expanding technology has continually proven the doom and gloomers wrong. We are underpopulated which is why many nations have been calling for their citizens to have more children.

Even in the U.S., our economic woes can be traced to underpopulation. We have been building more homes than we need for our declining population. Over 40% of the countries of the world are going to be in trouble if populations continue to decline: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

 

The planet is also an area though, right ? Only a larger one.

No need to try, I'm aware of all viewpoints and their arguments.

 

Ok..

 

I agree, but then comes that sticky little point about payiing for it! Which is, of course, a part-n-parcel of the idea of overpopulation in the first place.

I agree with your post in general ...but the facts of food production and distribution is all rolled up into "overpopulation" ...I don't think one can talk about overpopulation without taking into account those issues.

So, ...I hope you agree with me that many particular regions of the world are, in fact, overpopulated. And for me, to talk in terms of the whole planet is simply not being well educated about the conditions of the world.

Baron Max

 

Haven't I pointed out that the OP question is meaningless without telling what level are we talking about. A wasteful American's level, or an Tibetian monk's level?

 

Well, we're actually talking about both ...in a shadowy sorta' way!

I don't see how we can talk about "over-population" without talking about regions or areas of the world. To talk about it globally is nothing but smoke n' mirrors, without any real way of actually viewing it or qualifying it.

Baron Max

 

Your statement is correct but implies that the rain forest is being destroyed to grow crops. It is being destroyed by wealthy people who like the looks of fine woods, especially mahogany. A single tree delivered to the saw mill can be worth $1000 to the illegal cutter, who normally sets fire to the forest after removing the highest value trees in effort to hide his crime.

The most silly assertion, once made by Time is the rain forest is being destroyed to grow sugar cane for alcohol production. Alcohol is never shipped in Brazil more than 400 miles. More than half of all the cane fields are in the state of Sao Paulo as to be economically competitive the cane must be growing within about 50 miles of the distillery and most of them are within that state as that is near the large markets of Sao Paulo city and Rio. The rain forest is at least 800miles too far away from the markets to be economically competitive. Also note that less than 2% of Brazil's farm land is growing sugar cane. Pasture makes up about 50% as Brazil has the world's largest cattle herd. If concerned about the rain forest stop eating beef and never buy fancy woods - best to comment when in friends house that his mahogany end tables etc. are why the rain forest is being destroyed as feww understand the real cause. (Consider it an eductional duty as I do when posting this here.)


IMHO, much of the false information associating the destruction of the rain forest with either alcohol production or even food crops is a combination of two factors:
(1) The natural desire of the worlds wealthy to try to blame someone else for the evils they do.
(2) The intentional misleading propaganda of the corn to alcohol interest.

Those interest cannot justify the taxpayer high subsidies they receive by noting the corn based alcohol uses about the same fossil energy as is in the alcohol produced but sugar cane alcohol contains about 8 times more energy that the fossil energy used in its production.
Nor can they justify making Joe American's cost of driving significantly higher with the import tariffs on tropical alcohol so they can profit more with sale of a product damaging the public health and wealth.
Nor do they dare to acknowledge that corn grown in cold Iowa requires much more Nitrogen fertilizer to mature in the shorter growing season, which a Noble prize winning soil specialist has recently pointed out make huge increase in the NOx pollution as soil bacteria process most of this fertilize into NOx instead of the growing corn utilizing it. This NOx pollution ALONE is greater GHG than would be released than simply running the cars on gasoline and also quite a health hazard!
While the diversion of corn to non-food uses, probably does increase the cost of Joe American's food, that is not certain; but at least less is available for export and that weakens the dollar which makes imports more expensive for Joe, including especially oil.

Faced with these adverse facts it is little wonder that they mislead the ignorant public with false claims that Brazil is destroying the rain forest to produce alcohol. If I were among the wealthy less than 1% who profit from Joe American's extra taxes to support the subsidies and care zero about the fact he can barely afford to drive his car, I would tell lies to the US population also.

 

Interesting point of view, Billy. But read it again, and think about it in terms of the main topic of this thread - over-population.

Basically what you're saying is that a.) there's too fuckin' many rich people wanting too fuckin' much Amazon wood and, b.) there's too fuckin' many poor people seeking to become rich by supplying the present rich people with the Amazon wood that they want!

See? Too fuckin' many people!

Baron Max

 

The thread's subject is very complex. Certainly depends strongly on what the objectives of humans are. If high on that list is not to drive many species into extinction (including rain forest trees) then yes there is too much fucking (by fertile humans) occurring.

If the main goal is to increase opportunities for the average human, certainly in many underdeveloped countries the same is true. Many years ago an India lady told me that the main effect of US aid to India, China, Africa, etc. was to increase human misery. I was quite young so she shocked me at the time, but time has certainly proven her correct.

After gaining a few more years, I became an advocate of "birth control laced" low cost or free food in communities where people could not afford to properly nourish the kids they already had. I still advocate this, along with quality education for all (Our long stand argument - me against local funding of the schools).

If all were well educated, then there would be little need for the birth control laced food. In fact, the need would probably be for "free Viagra," bottle drinks with sex stimulants, etc. as most of the developed societies are now with significantly less than replacement birth rates. – An economic disaster building for almost all social security systems. Probably more important than the number of people is a stable age distribution and good education for all.