Overpopulation. Do you fear it?

[Enmos]

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.

Eventually numbers will increase, and they will approach a limit of what we will find acceptable. At that point all building restrictions are going to be revoked.
Tell me about people..

 

[mike47]

The advance in science and technology makes it easy to control population by various ways of birth controls . Many governments are encouraging that in their political agenda . In China you are allowed one child in the cities......etc .

 

[Enmos]

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.

By desolate I meant that the area has a really low population density. Or, at least, that's what I think Orleander meant.
I think she was making the point that because there are still vast virtually unpopulated areas that there is no overpopulation. This reasoning is flawed.

 

[Enmos]

The advance in science and technology makes it easy to control population by various ways of birth controls . Many governments are encouraging that in their political agenda . In China you are allowed one child in the cities......etc .

I'm waiting for that day..
But in reality no one really wants it. Just look at the responses I get when I suggest it as a solution. And if no one really wants it, it's no going to happen. Not in the Western world..

 

[dixonmassey]

Le Chatelier's principle

the principle that if a system in (quasi) equilibrium is subjected to a disturbance it tends to change in a way that opposes this disturbance

It's universal principle, yet humans think they are excluded because they are so smart. As for today, humans consume (directly and indirectly) around 30% of energy of bio synthesis, not speaking of pollution, habitat destruction, deforestation, soil erosion etc. It's a "disturbance" of planetary proportions. "Adjustment" will happen sooner or later, hopefully you'll die before the times of "adjustment".

 

[Michael]

Food production 'must rise 70%' to meet the demand of all the new mouths to feed in, primarily, the East.

Why do we need so many people? This just means less for all IMO. Sure we have the capability to reach 9 BILLION people (or more) but what of it? Is it so hard to imagine having a max of two children per couple???

 

[quadraphonics]

Food production 'must rise 70%' to meet the demand of all the new mouths to feed in, primarily, the East.

Sounds like good news for any country that happens to have, say, 5% of world population and 20% of world arable land, and that runs a huge trade deficit with the East...

 

[Michael]

Well that is good for economics but I think our economics is flawed. It seems to be based on an ever expanding pool of new people. Which is not sustainable.

 

[quadraphonics]

It seems to be based on an ever expanding pool of new people. Which is not sustainable.

Well, people have been saying that for generations now and yet... the process continues.

 

[science man]

At what cost?

huh? What do u mean? What at what cost?

 

[Tiassa]

It's a human issue, not a natural limitation

Overpopulation. Do you fear it?

I have my concerns, but it's nothing to fear yet.

One of the problems of the overpopulation debate is that many people tend to look at it in the wrong context. Theoretically, the Earth could support a tremendous population compared to what we have. Overpopulation, in this context, refers to resource supply and demand. With seven billion people on the planet, we are simply unwilling to find a way to feed them all. This is a resource-distribution question, not one of availability.

 

[science man]

I have my concerns, but it's nothing to fear yet.

One of the problems of the overpopulation debate is that many people tend to look at it in the wrong context. Theoretically, the Earth could support a tremendous population compared to what we have. Overpopulation, in this context, refers to resource supply and demand. With seven billion people on the planet, we are simply unwilling to find a way to feed them all. This is a resource-distribution question, not one of availability.

Thankyou when the time comes when we are in truoblle I will agree to this.

 

[Repo Man]

Development is threatening the Wildebeest population in Africa, http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5362301n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

If you want to see the last great animal migration on Earth, you might want to start making plans.

World's ocean fisheries are nearing collapse.

Worldwide fishing catches grew 400 percent between 1950 and 1994 (www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr-seafoodwatch/sfw-of.aspx), following centuries of increasingly intensive commercial fishing, but it couldn't last forever. Big fisheries began crashing by the late 20th century, and global production leveled off in 1988. U.S. catches peaked six years later at 5.2 million tons, more than double the country's 1950 total, and by 2008 they had fallen back down to 4.1 million, despite rising demand.

Fisheries and financial markets have a lot in common, according to a study published last month, and both can collapse dramatically after reaching certain tipping points. While such tipping points are difficult to predict, there are still clues beforehand. Stock markets often behave erratically when a meltdown is coming, the researchers found, and fisheries may undergo odd fluctuations in population and body size before they crash.

Bouncing back from a collapse is also no easier for some fish than it is for financial systems. When Newfoundland's cod fishery collapsed in 1992 and Canada closed it for rehabilitation, many expected a quick recovery since cod reproduce so prolifically. But something went wrong, and Newfoundland cod still haven't returned to their pre-collapse numbers, despite a decade-long moratorium on fishing that was upgraded to outright closure in 2003.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/528/story/881791.html

Wild Asian Elephant nearing extinction.

Although many thousands of domesticated Asian elephants are found in Southeast Asia, this magnificent animal is threatened by extinction in the wild: in the face of rapidly growing human populations, the Asian elephant's habitat is shrinking fast.

Wild elephant populations are mostly small, isolated, and unable to join as ancient migratory routes are cut off by human settlements. Confrontations between elephants and people often lead to deaths on both sides, and poaching for ivory, meat and hides is still a widespread problem.

A species that needs space
Through the Asian Rhinos and Elephants Action Strategy (AREAS), WWF is working throughout the Asian elephant range to conserve the remaining populations and their habitats. And because these large animals need a lot of space to survive, WWF considers the Asian elephant a 'flagship' species, whose conservation would help maintain biological diversity and ecological integrity over extensive areas.

http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/asian_elephants/

Siberian Tigers nearing extinction.

Research has demonstrated the Siberian tigers require vast forest landscapes to survive. However logging, both legal and illegal is threatening the tigers home by fragmenting their habitat thereby isolating them from each other. In addition, the continuous creation of new logging roads provide poachers with access to formerly remote areas.

So in essence, for the Siberian tiger to survive in the wild two things must happen. First, habitat encroachment must stop and secondly, the thousands of years old tradition of using tiger parts for medicinal purposes must also end.

http://www.tigersincrisis.com/siberian_tiger.htm

 

[madanthonywayne]

I'm waiting for that day..
But in reality no one really wants it. Just look at the responses I get when I suggest it as a solution. And if no one really wants it, it's no going to happen. Not in the Western world..

It's not necessary in the Western world. The population in most first world countries is already dropping and the rest of he world will likely soon follow suit.

Furthermore, a declining (and therefore aging) population is not a good thing:

The economics of depopulation are grim. Even at full employment, real gross domestic product may decline because the number of workers will be falling faster than productivity is rising. With the size of markets fixed or shrinking, businesses and governments may try to lock in their positions through cartels and protectionist policies, ushering in a zero-growth psychology not seen since the 1930s. With each new birth cohort smaller than the last, the typical workplace will be top-heavy with graybeards. Looking for a flexible, creative, entrepreneurial labor force? You'll have come to the wrong address. ​

The US is the only first world nation with fertility levels at or above replacement levels. This may well mean that, contrary to the opinions of BillyT on the rise of China, that the US may maintain its dominance in the 21st century for demographic reasons, if nothing else. The problems of an aging population are bad enough in a rich country, but what of a developing nation such as China?

Consider China, which may be the first country to grow old before it grows rich. For the past quarter-century, China has been "peacefully rising," thanks in part to a one-child policy that has allowed both parents to work and contribute to China's boom. But by the 2020s, as the huge Red Guard generation born before the country's fertility decline moves into retirement, they will tax the resources of their children and the state. China's coming age wave -- by 2030 it will be an older country than the United States -- may weaken the two pillars of the current regime's legitimacy: rapidly rising GDP and social stability. Imagine work-force growth slowing to zero while tens of millions of elders sink into indigence without pensions, without health care and without children to support them. China could careen toward social collapse -- or, in reaction, toward an authoritarian clampdown.​

And what about Russia?

By 2050, Russia is due to fall to 20th place in world population rankings, down from fourth place in 1950.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flatly calls Russia's demographic implosion "the most acute problem facing our country today." If the problem isn't solved, Russia will weaken progressively -- raising the nightmarish specter of a failed state with nukes. Or this cornered bear may lash out in fury rather than meekly accept its demographic fate. ​

And much of Europe and Japan face major demographic changes as their populations fail to reproduce:

Meanwhile, with the demand for low-wage labor rising, immigration (assuming no rise over today's rate) will double the percentage of Muslims in France and triple it in Germany. By 2030, Amsterdam, Marseille, Birmingham and Cologne are likely to be majority Muslim.​

Of course, the alternative to immigration is:

A recent cover of Der Spiegel shows a baby hoisting 16 old Germans on a barbell with the caption: "The Last German -- On the Way to an Old People's Republic." In Japan, the government half-seriously projects the date at which there will be only one Japanese citizen left alive.​

So it is our demographics (largely owing, I believe, to the greater religious belief in the US) which may well allow the US to continue to play a dominant role in world politics:

All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. For the past several years, the U.N. has published a table ranking the world's 12 most-populous countries over time. In 1950, six of the top 12 were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.​

So no, I'm not worried about overpopulation.

Global aging, global turmoil
By George Rede
January 10, 2009​

 

[Michael]

Well, people have been saying that for generations now and yet... the process continues.

This is true, but we have had some massive wars during those generations. Also, we're now at a point where someone could make and unleash a virus that wipes the earth of most of humanity. I don't think we've ever been in such a situation before?

 

[Enmos]

It's not necessary in the Western world. The population in most first world countries is already dropping and the rest of he world will likely soon follow suit.

Furthermore, a declining (and therefore aging) population is not a good thing:

The economics of depopulation are grim. Even at full employment, real gross domestic product may decline because the number of workers will be falling faster than productivity is rising. With the size of markets fixed or shrinking, businesses and governments may try to lock in their positions through cartels and protectionist policies, ushering in a zero-growth psychology not seen since the 1930s. With each new birth cohort smaller than the last, the typical workplace will be top-heavy with graybeards. Looking for a flexible, creative, entrepreneurial labor force? You'll have come to the wrong address. ​

The US is the only first world nation with fertility levels at or above replacement levels. This may well mean that, contrary to the opinions of BillyT on the rise of China, that the US may maintain its dominance in the 21st century for demographic reasons, if nothing else. The problems of an aging population are bad enough in a rich country, but what of a developing nation such as China?

Consider China, which may be the first country to grow old before it grows rich. For the past quarter-century, China has been "peacefully rising," thanks in part to a one-child policy that has allowed both parents to work and contribute to China's boom. But by the 2020s, as the huge Red Guard generation born before the country's fertility decline moves into retirement, they will tax the resources of their children and the state. China's coming age wave -- by 2030 it will be an older country than the United States -- may weaken the two pillars of the current regime's legitimacy: rapidly rising GDP and social stability. Imagine work-force growth slowing to zero while tens of millions of elders sink into indigence without pensions, without health care and without children to support them. China could careen toward social collapse -- or, in reaction, toward an authoritarian clampdown.​

And what about Russia?

By 2050, Russia is due to fall to 20th place in world population rankings, down from fourth place in 1950.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flatly calls Russia's demographic implosion "the most acute problem facing our country today." If the problem isn't solved, Russia will weaken progressively -- raising the nightmarish specter of a failed state with nukes. Or this cornered bear may lash out in fury rather than meekly accept its demographic fate. ​

And much of Europe and Japan face major demographic changes as their populations fail to reproduce:

Meanwhile, with the demand for low-wage labor rising, immigration (assuming no rise over today's rate) will double the percentage of Muslims in France and triple it in Germany. By 2030, Amsterdam, Marseille, Birmingham and Cologne are likely to be majority Muslim.​

Of course, the alternative to immigration is:

A recent cover of Der Spiegel shows a baby hoisting 16 old Germans on a barbell with the caption: "The Last German -- On the Way to an Old People's Republic." In Japan, the government half-seriously projects the date at which there will be only one Japanese citizen left alive.​

So it is our demographics (largely owing, I believe, to the greater religious belief in the US) which may well allow the US to continue to play a dominant role in world politics:

All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. For the past several years, the U.N. has published a table ranking the world's 12 most-populous countries over time. In 1950, six of the top 12 were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.​

So no, I'm not worried about overpopulation.

Global aging, global turmoil
By George Rede
January 10, 2009​

It's not a good thing in our current system which is based on everlasting growth. And that's simply not sustainable. See current crisis.
The US population in 1910 was 90 million. Today it's 305 million. That's more than a tripling in 100 years. Do the math.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
I see no leveling off..

 

[Orleander]

If people quit helping third world countries will the overpopulation problem cease?

 

[superstring01]

If people quit helping third world countries will the overpopulation problem cease?

Probably it will get worse. . . then better.

~String

 

[Enmos]

If people quit helping third world countries will the overpopulation problem cease?

In the short term it might, but eventually the world population will still exceed the planets carrying capacity.
And, depending on how you look at it, it's already come that far..

 

[superstring01]

It's not a good thing in our current system which is based on everlasting growth. And that's simply not sustainable. See current crisis.
The US population in 1910 was 90 million. Today it's 305 million. That's more than a tripling in 100 years. Do the math.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
I see no leveling off..

I'm not worried about the growth of the American population. Growth is good for us. . . for now. Eventually it could get bad. As it stands, the more people the USA has, the more we will be on parity with China, India and the EU. Just the same, the population of the USA is expected to plateau around 400 million around the middle of the next century.

By that time, hopefully, technology will advance to the point where having an older population will be economically sustainable.

~String