Over population! (Lab)

Is the [b]World[/b] over populated?


  • Total voters
    27
Fact: We are currently over-fishing our oceans. In a few decades we will see massive crashes in the ocean's edible fish populations if we keep going the way we are.

I'm not sure that has much to do with an over populated planet. I would say its more because fishermen are stupid, greedy and think they will get richer by harvesting the seas and not so much about pulling up stuff from the ocean to feed the people in the world. Most of the felgercarb we (over)produce gets thrown in the trash when it goes unsold. So, yes it's bad, but I wouldn't blame the hungry people for it (nor the world population)...
 
I think there needs to be a definition of overpopulation in this discussion. I would state that over-population means we exceed our capacity to indefintely sustain ourselves. Currently our waste and inefficiency must be factored in to our ability to sustain ourselves. All of our systems be they economic, political, or material are rife with inefficiency and waste and it has been that way ever since humanity created the first versions of those systems. To my mind, they must be included for that reason.

Secondly, I also think it needs to be stated that I do believe we are over our population limit, but that doesn't mean the limit couldn't catch up with us. It could also go back the other way. Both population and the limit are moveable on the graph. If we, like Dyngo and others are talking about, address the issue of inefficiency and misdirected resources, then yes, we just might be able to sustain ourselves at our current level... though I personally don't believe that.

Also, It should also be stated that population is directly linked to pollution and governance issues. A small population could pollute as much as they want and not make a dent in the world's systems. Alot can pollute just the tiniest bit and through everything out of whack. As human systems get larger waste gets larger and inefficiency gets larger. Pollution is waste as is thrown away food, squandered materials, and lost time and effort that gets sucked into bureaucratic black holes. As population increases we lose our ability to regulate ourselves efficiently and thus I see no reason to think that we can streamline ourselves out of this problem. When no person can see the whole of a system due to its sheer size and complexity, no one can see the right way to make that system run better short of alot of guesswork. And even then, they might not be able to because there are a whole lot of other people set in their ways and who want to hold on to their professions/power-bases/reputations/etc.
 
Dyngo said:
I would say its more because fishermen are stupid, greedy and think they will get richer by harvesting the seas and not so much about pulling up stuff from the ocean to feed the people in the world. Most of the felgercarb we (over)produce gets thrown in the trash when it goes unsold.
I don't believe we're producing much more Food than is needed. Just take the Rise in the Cornprice for Example - because you can make Fuel out of Corn, and Fuel is much more valuable than Corn, the Percentage of Corn shunted into Engines is going up. This little decrease in Corn that's available to eat was enough to drive the Price so high (admittedly aided by Speculators) that Riots ensued in Mexico.

But is this really about how many Humans we can feed on one Planet ? Do you want to live on an Earth that's been turned into a gigantic Human-Sustaining-Machine, where every Hectare is either Habitat or Farmingarea ? Isn't enough of the Land agricultural Desert already ?
 
But is this really about how many Humans we can feed on one Planet ? Do you want to live on an Earth that's been turned into a gigantic Human-Sustaining-Machine, where every Hectare is either Habitat or Farmingarea ? Isn't enough of the Land agricultural Desert already ?

Actually, this brings up a good second definition of over-population. Preference. How do we want the world to be?

Honestly, I fall squarely on the side of "too many people" both preferentially and scientifically. I don't like being one in 6.6 billion.
 
I decided to look up the world population where-abouts and the how much money the richest person in the world has, or, actually, what his net worth is....

If that richest person were to buy everyone in the world for an equal amount of money, we'd be worth about 10 dollars each.
 
I don't care one in how many i am. But the Thought that the Cheetah might go extinct because another Human "has to live on something" makes me gloomy... and so furious.
 
Watchmaker,

You sound like an average smug american who thinks they know it all. But in reality all of your thoughts have been shaped by your environment. You probably can't even think for yourself. Don't get on here attacking people's ideas because you think you know it all. It's quite rude. It would be one thing if you had some insight on the situation.
 
If you have something constructive to say about someones post do so but do it in a mature manner. Whether you like someone or not doesn't matter and shouldn't be expressed on these boards in other words keep your posts in reference to the content not the poster.

Anymore inappropriate comments directed towards posters will end up with this thread locked and infractions given out. Kcraptree0079 asked for some help on a project in a constructive manner so either help him with his lab or keep your comments about other posters to yourself.
 
Everyone here seems to think the world is over populated because of a lack of food. But why? What makes you think we are running out of food?

---

Gate said it's because we are fishing our oceans dry. This has been a hot-topic for quite some time now, and hundreds of studies prove that yes, we are over fishing. But because of a over population of the earth? Not exactly. It's true we might literately have too many humans eating fish, but is that because they need it to survive or because they've developed a taste for a relatively cheap food?

Websites on this topic have sprung up all over since this issue came about. One in particular ( Overfishing - A global environmental problem, threat to our oceans and disaster. ) says we are over fishing because of "ignorance and a global lack of management." I feel that's EXACTLY right. Irresponsible fishing is the problem. The more you fish, the more money you make. It's as simple as that. Fish isn't an exception to the food market. If you bottlenecked the fishing, you'd raise the prices on fish, and the sales would go down. (And our oceans wouldn't be in a crisis.)

---

Performer said that a clear sign we are over populated is because of the increase in corn prices because of the new biofuels. That's a legitimate concern, because if a shift in the market like that can effect prices so much, then it's definitely because of the demand, right?

Not exactly. There's still a debate on whether or not the shift in prices was actually because of the new biofuel market, or just because of "the monopolizing practices and speculation carried out by the main companies that have controlled corn commercialization in Mexico ever since president Salinas privatized CONASUPO, the major parastatal company that used to regulate prices and subsidize corn." (http://lac.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2007/3/27/2838904.html) I personally lean toward the latter, not because I'm against the idea of over-population, but because of past events. If businesses can exploit a market and monopolize it for money, they will.

On top of that, going with the idea that the biofuel market really is what caused the shift, there's a good chance it won't be around much longer.

While biofuels are currently an increasing market, lowering in price, and becoming more and more compatible with current day cars, the movement against them is growing just as rapidly. There are several studies proving that in order to make fuel from corn, you have to spend more energy than the fuel itself produces. That's a dead end. In states where biofuel is becoming popular, carbon misprisions are lowering... But is that only because biofuel is produces in other states? I'd personally say yes. I personally feel that biofuel is a crutch for the world until it moves on to a more efficient system. (That doesn't effect food prices.)

---

If there are any other reasons you believe that the world is over populated, please let me know.

Now, since I seem to be just about the only counter-point here, let me propose a question of my own. Lets say this. Yes, the world is over populated. There are simply too many humans on the planet, and it can no longer support us adequately. The solid proof of over population simply isn't here yet because we haven't digressed far enough.

What's your solution? How do you plan on preventing/countering a over populated world?

Or are you simply saying, "See! I'm right! We're all screwed and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. Neener neener!" ? (Which I must say, makes the other side seem like the "average smug american who thinks they know it all. But in reality all of your thoughts have been shaped by your environment.")
 
The discussion of a problem and the discussion of a solution can be two entirely different things. Just because one can identify a problem does not mean one is capable of fathoming a solution. To state that in its most simple form, anyone can see a crack in a dam, but only an engineer can fathom the way to fix that crack or tell if that crack can indeed be fixed. That does not make the person who reported the crack either smug or a know-it-all.

As far as the proof of over-population. The shortages and easily forseen future shortages are one sign. The escalation of both the number of wars and the severity of them is another. The rapid destruction of our environment in the forms of habit destruction and specific extinctions are another. The increasing threat of pandemics and the rapid spread of various genetic disorders that are slipping out of our grasp to understand much less control are yet another indicator. Humanity cannot politically, socially, economically, environmentally, and biologically withstand the pressures that our current population is placing upon ourselves and our planet. Everything gets more complicated when it involves more people. Which of these factors plays the largest role and which of them play critical roles, I cannot say. I just see the result of, as Douglas Adams would put it, the whole sort of general mish mash (TWSOGMM). He applied that term to multiple dimensions, but honestly, when dealing with the sheer scope of everything involved in our lives and situations, complexity tends to spiral to infinity as well.

As far as solutions, I really don't have any that humanity is likely to accept. Humans generally don't want to cut back on consumption or breeding, nor do they accept the slimming effects of efficiency very easily. Strides made in any of those directions tend to be very tiny steps indeed, though they tend to be touted as great accomplishments.
 
The shortages and easily forseen future shortages are one sign.

Which shortages are you talking about? Oil? Food? Please elaborate.

The escalation of both the number of wars and the severity of them is another.

Escalation of wars? What escalation of wars? There's been a steady pace of wars since history was first written down! I understand that war is now the popular thing because of Iraq and Darfur, but conflict between humans have always been there. While I can't claim to be a historian, I'm pretty sure there's always been a war going on somewhere.

If anything, I'd say wars have declined in the past few centuries.

The rapid destruction of our environment in the forms of habit destruction and specific extinctions are another.

While I agree we are destroying environments and causing certain animals to go extinct, I don't feel this is directly related to over population. You could probably cut the world's population in half and still have these problems.

The increasing threat of pandemics and the rapid spread of various genetic disorders that are slipping out of our grasp to understand much less control are yet another indicator.

I think this is more "History repeating Itself" rather than a sign of too many humans on the planet.

Looking back at Europe in the 1340's, I'm sure the Bubonic plague looked like the end of the world too. It killed over 75 million people in less than 60 years. Yet now we look back at it with a vaccine and understanding on how it happened and why. While I'm only speculating, I wouldn't be surprised to find us looking back at AIDS and cancer the same way in a few decades.

Humanity cannot politically, socially, economically, environmentally, and biologically withstand the pressures that our current population is placing upon ourselves and our planet. Everything gets more complicated when it involves more people.

So... Your saying eventually all forms of government and society are going to break under the increasing amounts of opinions? Of course they are, and it's been happening for thousands of years... It's just not causing the end of the world. People have always been disagreeing about something. It doesn't really matter if you have two views or two million views. People will argue.

But will that constant arguing cause the end of civilization? I don't really think so, because the entire human race isn't a bottled up 3rd world country in chains. While I'm sure there are some people willing to go to that extent of collapsing goverments, most of the world is educated enough to know life is about compromises.

"Those who do not learn from their History are doomed to repeat it."

I feel that today's society is above a total collapse. (Granted it would be pretty awesome to see a total collapse.)
 
Which shortages are you talking about? Oil? Food? Please elaborate.

Fuel resources, fresh water, various kinds of foods, arable land, material resources. We are already seeing various conflicts about land, water, and fuel.

Escalation of wars? What escalation of wars? There's been a steady pace of wars since history was first written down! I understand that war is now the popular thing because of Iraq and Darfur, but conflict between humans have always been there. While I can't claim to be a historian, I'm pretty sure there's always been a war going on somewhere.

If anything, I'd say wars have declined in the past few centuries.

Everyone pictures wars in the past as being these amazingly large things... yet most of the entire wars in human history were smaller than one single battle of WWI. That is both in terms of destructive power and number of people. WWII dwarfed WWI in all respects. Wars used to be about armies confronting one another and perhaps sieging stragegic towns or strongholds. With industrialization those bastions were no more and instead wars became about controlling or destroying resources (including human populations and morale). Thus wars have turned to carpet bombing cities, wiping out massive civilian populations (something that really did not happen very frequently earlier in history- now it is the rule instead of the exception.), and the deprivation of natural cover and resources to the enemy (aka napalm in vietnam). We have seen non-stop warfare in many parts of the world of late. As humanity grows ever more dense in numbers, people have ever more reason to fight over what they have always fought over- religion, land, resources, pride, etc.

From Korea to Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Iraq part one, Iraq part two, Iraq's invasion of Iran, The Yom Kippur War, The Seven Days War, Afghanistan (Russia), Afghanistan (US), the Balkans, god knows how many african wars... I really can keep going if you want, but those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Those are wars in just the last few decades really, with WWI being much older of a conflict than all the rest. Here is a list of what the UN defines as the current major wars going on right now. These are conflicts with greater than 1000 battlefield deaths per year. You will note that the list is around 40 conflicts long.

Link

While I agree we are destroying environments and causing certain animals to go extinct, I don't feel this is directly related to over population. You could probably cut the world's population in half and still have these problems.

As humanity grows in population it expands into the habitats of animals and plants. Those are displaced (read as killed/burned/cut down/forced elsewhere). Human expansion is the primary cause of habitat loss today. Those directly result in massive pressures upon the species which causes them to be extremely vulnerable to extinction. Furthermore many of the "domesticated" areas of the world like the entire east coast of the US and most of Europe are not really compex ecosystems anymore. They are incredibly simplified since the entire areas were deforested and replanted with easy to manage species. These are not healthy ecosytems, these are bare-minimum ecosystems which cause populations (like deer) to go completely out of whack. They also present vast opportunities for invasive species to take hold which futher cause problems for the natives.

I think this is more "History repeating Itself" rather than a sign of too many humans on the planet.

Looking back at Europe in the 1340's, I'm sure the Bubonic plague looked like the end of the world too. It killed over 75 million people in less than 60 years. Yet now we look back at it with a vaccine and understanding on how it happened and why. While I'm only speculating, I wouldn't be surprised to find us looking back at AIDS and cancer the same way in a few decades.

Today due to the sheer complexity of all the chemicals, medicines, pollutants, etc we use and are exposed to, we have vast quantities of allergies, illnesses, and other disorders that never existed before. Look at the statistics on mental disorders such as autism and respitory disorders such as asthma, and you see that these were extremely rare... and are now basically running rampant. AIDS and such are the least of it, we are managing to weaken our entire gene pool. Modern medicine actually weakens the gene pool because it allows people who normally would have died/ been unfit to pass on their genes to their children. We are working on "solutions" to this problem with gene therapy and such, however there is a strong body of evidence that the more we mess around the more issues we cause in solving the old issues. These merely make us more vulnerable to other problems, I don't see them being one of the leading causes of a population crash.

So... Your saying eventually all forms of government and society are going to break under the increasing amounts of opinions? Of course they are, and it's been happening for thousands of years... It's just not causing the end of the world. People have always been disagreeing about something. It doesn't really matter if you have two views or two million views. People will argue.

We cannot fathom how much more complicated things are today than they used to be. Billions of ideas meshing, thousands of new technologies springing up and interacting each year, social organisation getting rewritten every time a new mass communication method is invented. For most of human history, control was localized and government was by necessity based on a relatively small region. Governments like the Roman Empire defied this trend for a time, but they also were not dealing with vast technological and societal improvements/changes and having to revise their legal systems every other year to keep up. We probably pass more laws every few years than they had on the books. And it's to the point that no one can keep track of it all, so it (like as you said bureaucracies always have done) spiral into an endless loop of unbreakable complexity, power-scheming, and inefficiency. But if that happened and caused downfalls of governments in the past, how much worse when you amplify the bureaucracy by 1000? And consider that it's not just more opinions, it's billions more opinions and growing extremely fast. Most of human history was marked by real change occuring over generations, now it occurs in months. Technological advancement, ethics, and governmental rule are not keeping pace with one another. Technology and population are rushing ahead so fast that ethical codes and governmental strategies are being left in the dust. Consider that the US constitution was drafted to provide the rule of law for about 4 million people. Do you really think our systems are so perfect that they can scale efficiently from 5 million to 300 million? To say nothing of the constant need to revise infrastructure? (some of which is starting to fail in pretty drastic ways because it simply cannot keep up).

Link to map and rate of human population growth

But will that constant arguing cause the end of civilization? I don't really think so, because the entire human race isn't a bottled up 3rd world country in chains. While I'm sure there are some people willing to go to that extent of collapsing goverments, most of the world is educated enough to know life is about compromises.

Life is about compromises but people rarely want to compromise. People are not by their very natures entirely rational beings. It makes finding and working out practical solutions increasingly difficult. As a prime example, the US recently passed a measure saying that we will in the near future set up a conference or whatnot to pass a measure to address climate change. That was hailed as progress. Nothing was accomplished and it will probably come to naught, yet it occupied weeks of the legislature's time and focus.

"Those who do not learn from their History are doomed to repeat it."

I feel that today's society is above a total collapse. (Granted it would be pretty awesome to see a total collapse.)

I think a collapse would be one of the most aweful things I could witness. I also agree that we wouldn't have a total collapse. However even a partial one is enough to send us spiraling down into a place we really do not want to be. Imagine a collapse of the asian nations. Billions of people starving/rioting/scrabbling for power. And that's just one continent. Throw in the tools of modern warfare and you have a very seriously sick situation that wouldn't leave anyone unaffected, even on the other side of the world.

Also, remember that we don't need a total collapse to bring us back below that population threshold. Many species suffer partial collapses and some even develop a perfect sin wave with the resources that sustain them. They constantly rise and crash, rise and crash following the restoration of that which provides them with life.
 
There really isn't much to add after Gates Elucidation. Still, i'd like to drop a few Links about Habitatloss, Endangerment of Species and the Reasons thereof, because i believe that's the only Indicator of Overpopulation we need. BBC, About.com and EndangeredSpecie agree that Deforestation, Agriculture, Draining of Wetlands and the Spread of human Settlements are actually a major Factor. One Quote from BBC is especially Stunning: "All together, up to half of all new Plantgrowth each Year on the Planet is taken for human Use."

And since you asked about Solutions... It's the most basic Instinct of any Creature to preserve its own Life, so any Solutions to Overpopulation are going to be unpopular with the Majority. We could have a biological Weapon released, but i guess it would take a lot of Effort to devise one powerful enough. Or i'd like a Worldgovernment as sole Power, that recklessly enforces a Decree of Obliteration - but where do you get one of those ?
The Way to take that i advocate is to collect and archive genetic Material on a grand Scale - then sit it out. There's going to be Change in the Future anyway, either through War, natural Catastrophe, Diseases or a Change of Thinking. But for a Chance to rebuild then, once the Technology is there, and Habitat is available once again, we need the Seeds to revive the Species that we destroyed.
 
Above a total collapse? That is insane! Anything is always possible, doesn't matter how much technology we have. I feel that technology will kill off our species in the long run...
 
I’m sure that before too long, maybe the next 200 years, we’ll do some experiment that we this is harmless and accidently destroy the planet, I’m very sure of it.

We have to face the very probable fact that the speed of light is the limit, and we’re stuck forever in our solar system. There will be no traveling to other star systems that can support life, let alone other galaxies.

The universe has been around for a long, long time. The old adage that there’s so many star systems that if only 1 out of a million had planets, 1 out of a million of those had life, and 1 out of a million of those had intelligent life, and 1 out of 100 of those had the technology to travel to the stars. There would be millions of technologically advanced races out there. Not one individual out untold trillions of those ‘people’ has accidently slipped up and made their presence known? Not one has received our transmissions and responded back? Not one has come by for tea?

Then again, an ant has no capacity for the comprehension of what a human is. No bacteria can even begin to fathom that it’s destroying a being’s lungs, it’s just hungry. They just don’t have the senses or mental power to gather the data needed to perceive us. Maybe it’s the same with us and aliens, or us and God for that matter.

For all we know, we’re staring straight into the eye of God whenever we look up at the sky, we just don’t have the senses or mental power to begin to understand it.

For all we know, aliens could be experimenting with us at this very moment, and our eyes can’t see them. Our skin doesn’t feel them. Our nose can’t smell them, and our ears can’t hear them. They’re standing right next to you with a clipboard and a pen, jotting notes, just outside our scope of perception.



As for over-population... Just the fact that so many of us get the common cold or the flu every year is a testiment to how easily it would be to wipe out the human race with one virus. Viruses mutate constantly, it's only a matter of time...

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for every single person drops to zero... On a longer timeline, the survival rate for every species on earth drops to zero.
 
Yea, I remember hearing something about 27 or 28 known dimensions... and we can only comprehend 3 dimensions. Something of that type, can't quite remember. Maybe these are dimensions that we can not comprehend. We use something like 10 percent of our brain? Not quite sure about that either but, the majority just sits and does nothing. If we could harness the power to use our minds to full capacity it would be pretty amazing what they would be able to do. Also maybe all these figures are garbage, where do we actually get a figures like that? Maybe we are the outcast civilization or the furthest one. No one wants anything to do with us or we are to far to reach?
 
Yea, I remember hearing something about 27 or 28 known dimensions... and we can only comprehend 3 dimensions. Something of that type, can't quite remember. Maybe these are dimensions that we can not comprehend. We use something like 10 percent of our brain? Not quite sure about that either but, the majority just sits and does nothing. If we could harness the power to use our minds to full capacity it would be pretty amazing what they would be able to do. Also maybe all these figures are garbage, where do we actually get a figures like that? Maybe we are the outcast civilization or the furthest one. No one wants anything to do with us or we are to far to reach?

11 dimensions if you believe string/membrane theory (which I do).

I'd say it's probably REALLY 10% of our brain at any given point in time, but we do use the whole thing.
 
Back
Top