Overpopulation. Do you fear it?

[Enmos]

My dutch friend was gobsmacked when visiting when I used to live in the Australian Outback. He came in by night and so in the morning when we went to a mountain he was in awe of the amount of open land.

Actually, the amount of "open land" isn't really an issue here. Overpopulation is about more than just the available land.

Edit: And to make use of land it has to be usable. Deserts are usually not the best places to settle in.

 

[wsionynw]

I don't fear overpopulation because I have driven through Nebraska. My husband has the fear that we will drive into a ditch and we won't be found for weeks.

What does that have to do with overpopulation?

 

[Enmos]

What does that have to do with overpopulation?

What she means to say is that it's a desolate place. Not that that's directly related to the subject of this thread..

 

[Orleander]

that place that seems desolate to my husband isn't to me. I see wheat, potatoes, corn, cattle, deer, rabbits, grouse, pheasants, and antelope. He grew up near water where there are more trees and everything is greener. Like the foreign exchange student, its kind of a shock.

 

[WillNever]

Almost all of the the uninhabited land in the USA is habitable. The vast, vast, VAST majority of our land is "rural," including Alaska. We've still got plenty of room here in the USA and our rural population is growing much slower than our urban population, as more people migrate to cities for god know's what reason.

 

[science man]

And when will it become necessary? In my opinion we already passed that point.

No the Earth can support 9 billion and we're at almost 7 billion here a cool link on current population. http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

 

[Repo Man]

No the Earth can support 9 billion and we're at almost 7 billion here a cool link on current population. http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

At what standard of living? And what of all of the species that are already endangered? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks this planet can support nine billion humans at the current level of resource consumption in the U.S.

 

[CheskiChips]

We don't have a population problem, we have a resource efficiency problem. We waste more food, water, energy and raw resources by our bureaucratic inefficiencies than we use. What we need is a better system, not a smaller population.

I agree that population under the current system has a max limit, and the Earth probably does as well. However it would be a flow diagram like...

$$Resource Use= function(resourcemgt(population)))$$
rather than
$$Resource Use= function(population)$$

The upper limit of the two is different.

 

[Repo Man]

We don't have a population problem, we have a resource efficiency problem. We waste more food, water, energy and raw resources by our bureaucratic inefficiencies than we use. What we need is a better system, not a smaller population.

I agree that population under the current system has a max limit, and the Earth probably does as well. However it would be a flow diagram like...

$$Resource Use= function(resourcemgt(population)))$$
rather than
$$Resource Use= function(population)$$

The upper limit of the two is different.

So we should tailor our resource use in order to maximize the number of humans that can fit on the planet? Why?

 

[WillNever]

No but there's no reason to limit the number of humans when our population is not even close to hurting us. People keep citing pollution problems and such in this sort of debate, but that's a function of the behavior of the humans we already do have, not the number of them that exist. That behavior is the problem that must be addressed.

 

[CheskiChips]

So we should tailor our resource use in order to maximize the number of humans that can fit on the planet? Why?

No, we should use our resources more effectively. 14% of American food that reaches stores is thrown away, that's high considering the raw totals. Another large part is grown but since farmers only harvest at peak times...food pre-or post- peak times is wasted. However they still utilized water and soil. Another report says 30 million pounds of food goes to waste yearly. Half of all crops grown in 3rd world countries has to be thrown away due to simply not having the right tools.

How many things that could be produced locally are imported?

How many products use cheaper alternatives to nearby resources?


If we increased our efficiency we could decrease the resource per capita SIGNIFICANTLY. This decrease would increase the estimated carrying capacity by equally significant figures.

 

[Repo Man]

No but there's no reason to limit the number of humans when our population is not even close to hurting us. People keep citing pollution problems and such in this sort of debate, but that's a function of the behavior of the humans we already do have, not the number of them that exist. That behavior is the problem that must be addressed.

Whether our present number is close to hurting us is far from settled. But we are certainly having a negative impact on ecosystems around the world. If you do not care, that's your option. But many of the species that are now endangered will be pushed right over the edge by further increasing the number of humans on the planet. The unstated assumption here seems to be that we should be trying to fit as many humans as possible on this planet, as though that is a desirable end to achieve. What difference does it make if we stop our increase now, or at some future date with some unknown number?

 

[nietzschefan]

I believe it..
But it doesn't change the fact that the worlds population is still doubling every 50 years or so.

I know what you are saying, but in Canada for instance, there are only 2 places where the Urban population is encroaching seriously on fertile farm land or Animal territory. Vancouver and Toronto and both places are basically stopped, can only built UPwards because of Greenbelt laws.

In Canada, we can do fuck all about Indians shitting in their own rivers and setting up shantyvilles on previously fertile farmland. It's NOT a global problem, but a problem that exists in the 3rd world. I think that in the better Indian provinces (Hyderabad) the birth rate is stabilizing. The only real thing we North Americans (and perhaps Europeans) can do it let these countries climb out of their shit piles and try to limit them from war as much as possible. That means our standard of living might go down a bit as theirs climbs very rapidly. It probably happening right now, I personally can't wait till Indians and Chinese figure out they don't need managers in the U.S, the same guys that shipped all the labour there.

We gotta deal with less (like say give up the trinkets and 2nd car and buying sweet16 her porshe or implants lol). They gotta deal with growth and prosperity, one of the first things that usually comes with that is child labour laws - Poof! that will kill birth rate more than anything else.

 

[nietzschefan]

What she means to say is that it's a desolate place. Not that that's directly related to the subject of this thread..

They are not "desolate".

Saskachewan in Canada for instance is laughed at by most Canadians (including good-heated Saskabushites), yet could feed ALL of North America. Alone.

Same with U.S breadbasket states. Canada and the U.S compete CLOAK AND DAGGER style for overseas food markets. It's probably sparked more tension than any other issue, behind the scenes, people don't even know about it, than any other issue with the two countries.

 

[dixonmassey]

Hell, yes, urban landscapes of China (NYC, LA, Chicago...) send me into deep dark mood immediately.

 

[science man]

So we should tailor our resource use in order to maximize the number of humans that can fit on the planet? Why?

So we don't have to have deaths happen such as aborations.

 

[Enmos]

that place that seems desolate to my husband isn't to me. I see wheat, potatoes, corn, cattle, deer, rabbits, grouse, pheasants, and antelope. He grew up near water where there are more trees and everything is greener. Like the foreign exchange student, its kind of a shock.

Ok, devoid of people then.

 

[Enmos]

No the Earth can support 9 billion and we're at almost 7 billion here a cool link on current population. http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

At what cost?

 

[Enmos]

We don't have a population problem, we have a resource efficiency problem. We waste more food, water, energy and raw resources by our bureaucratic inefficiencies than we use. What we need is a better system, not a smaller population.

I agree that population under the current system has a max limit, and the Earth probably does as well. However it would be a flow diagram like...

$$Resource Use= function(resourcemgt(population)))$$
rather than
$$Resource Use= function(population)$$

The upper limit of the two is different.

The Earth has a fixed limit no matter what, a physical limit at the very least.

 

[Enmos]

No but there's no reason to limit the number of humans when our population is not even close to hurting us. People keep citing pollution problems and such in this sort of debate, but that's a function of the behavior of the humans we already do have, not the number of them that exist. That behavior is the problem that must be addressed.

Behavior is just one factor, a factor that makes everything worse. But nonetheless, a huge number of people if going to destroy habitats and pollute the rest no matter what.